Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S44-S147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Begich, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer):
S. 1. A bill to create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen
America's middle class through measures that modernize the nation's
infrastructure, enhance America's energy independence, expand
educational opportunities, preserve and improve afforrdable health
care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need, and for
other purposes; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 1

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 ``American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. JOB CREATION, ECONOMIC GROWTH, AND A STRONG MIDDLE
CLASS.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and
the President should sign, legislation to create jobs,
restore economic growth, and strengthen America's middle
class through measures that--
(1) modernize the nation's infrastructure;
(2) enhance America's energy independence;
(3) expand educational opportunities;
(4) preserve and improve affordable health care;
(5) provide tax relief; and
(6) protect those in greatest need.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Begich, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, and Ms.
Mikulski):
S. 2. A bill to improve the lives of middle class families and
provide them with greater opportunity to achieve the American dream;
read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 2

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 ``Middle Class Opportunity Act
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and
the President should sign, legislation to improve the lives
of middle class families and provide them with greater
opportunity to achieve the American dream by--
(1) providing middle class tax relief while making the tax
laws simpler and more reliable;
(2) promoting investments in the new economy and enacting
policies that create good, well-paying jobs in the United
States;
(3) enhancing the incentives and protections to help middle
class families adequately meet their needs in retirement;
(4) improving programs to help families acquire the
education and training to be productive participants in the
modern economy;
(5) promoting families by improving the access and
affordability of child and elder care;
(6) restoring fairness, prosperity, and economic security
for working families by ensuring workers can exercise their
rights to freely choose to form a union without employer
interference; and
(7) removing barriers to fair pay for all workers.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Begich, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs.
McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, and Ms.
Mikulski):
S. 3. A bill to to protect homeowners and consumers by reducing
foreclosures, ensuring the availability of credit for homeowners,
businesses, and consumers, and reforming the financial regulatory
system, and for other purposes; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 3

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 ``Homeowner Protection and
Wall Street Accountability Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and
the President should sign, legislation--
(1) to stabilize the housing market and assist homeowners
by imposing a temporary moratorium on foreclosures, removing
impediments to the modification of distressed mortgages,
creating tax and other incentives to help prevent
foreclosures and encourage refinancing into affordable and
sustainable mortgage solutions, and pursuing other
foreclosure-prevention policies through the Troubled Asset
Relief Program or other programs;
(2) to ensure the safety and soundness of the United States
financial system for investors by reforming the financial-
regulatory system, strengthening systemic-risk regulation,
enhancing market transparency, and increasing consumer
protections in financial regulation to prevent predatory
lending practices;
(3) to ensure credit-card accountability, responsibility
and disclosure; and
(4) to stabilize credit markets for small-business lenders
to enhance their ability to make loans to small firms, and
stimulate the small-business loan markets by temporarily
streamlining and investing in the loan programs of the Small
Business Administration.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr. Lautenberg,
Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 4 A bill to guarantee affordable, quality health coverage for all
Americans, and for other purposes; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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
placed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page S45]]

S. 4

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 ``Comprehensive Health Reform
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and
the President should sign, legislation to guarantee health
coverage, improve health care quality and disease prevention,
and reduce health care costs for all Americans and the health
care system.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Harkin, Mr.
Kennedy, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Bingaman, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Casey, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs.
McCaskill, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Akaka,
Mr. Schumer, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 5. A bill to improve the economy and security of the United States
by reducing the dependence of the United States on foreign and
unsustainable energy sources and the risks of global warming, and for
other purposes; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 5

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 ``Cleaner, Greener, and
Smarter Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and
the President should sign, legislation to improve the economy
and the security of the United States by reducing the
dependence of the United States on foreign and unsustainable
energy sources and the risks of global warming by--
(1) making and encouraging significant investments in green
job creation and clean energy across the economy;
(2) diversifying and rapidly expanding the use of secure,
efficient, and environmentally-friendly energy supplies and
technologies;
(3) transforming the infrastructure of the United States to
make the infrastructure sustainable and the United States
more competitive globally, including transmission grid
modernization and transportation sector electrification;
(4) requiring reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases
in the United States and achieving reductions in emissions of
greenhouse gases abroad;
(5) protecting consumers from volatile energy prices
through better market oversight and enhanced energy
efficiency standards and incentives; and
(6) eliminating wasteful and unnecessary tax breaks and
giveaways that fail to move the United States toward a more
competitive and cleaner energy future.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Levin, Mr.
Lieberman, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Casey, Mr.
Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr.
Schumer, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 6. A bill to restore and enhance the national security of the
United States; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 6

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 ``Restoring America's Power
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and
the President should sign, legislation to restore and enhance
the national security of the United States by--
(1) strengthening America's military capabilities and
recognizing the service of United States troops and the
commitment of their families by ensuring our Armed Forces
receive proper training and equipment prior to deployment,
support and medical care when they return home, and adequate
dwell time between deployments;
(2) addressing the threat posed by Al Qaeda and other
terrorist groups with a comprehensive military, intelligence,
homeland security and diplomatic strategy and refocusing on
Afghanistan and Pakistan as the United States transitions in
Iraq;
(3) defeating extremist ideology by increasing the
effectiveness of United States intelligence, diplomatic, and
foreign assistance capabilities; restoring the United States
standing in the world and strengthening alliances; and
addressing transnational humanitarian and development
challenges; and
(4) reducing the threat posed by unsecured nuclear
materials and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
effectively addressing the security challenges posed by Iran
and North Korea.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Kerry, Mr. Begich, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms.
Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 7. A bill to expand educational opportunities for all Americans by
increasing access to high-quality early childhood education and after
school programs, advancing reform in elementary and secondary
education, strengthening mathematics and science instruction, and
ensuring that higher education is more affordable, and for other
purposes; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 7

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 ``Education Opportunity Act of
2009''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that the Senate and the House
of Representatives should pass, and the President should sign
into law, legislation to expand educational opportunities for
all Americans by--
(1) increasing access to high-quality early childhood
education and expanding child care, after school, and
extended learning opportunities;
(2) improving accountability and assessment measures for
elementary and secondary school students, increasing
secondary school graduation rates, and supporting elementary
and secondary school improvement efforts;
(3) strengthening teacher preparation, induction, and
support in order to recruit and retain qualified and
effective teachers in high-need schools;
(4) enhancing the rigor and relevance of State academic
standards and encouraging innovative reform at the middle and
high school levels;
(5) strengthening mathematics and science curricula and
instruction; and
(6) increasing Federal grant aid for students and the
families of students, improving the rate of postsecondary
degree completion, and providing tax incentives to make
higher education more affordable.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Begich, Mr.
Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr.
Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 8. A bill to return the Government to the people by reviewing
controversial ``midnight regulations'' issued in the waning days of the
Bush Administration; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 8

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 ``Returning Government to the
American People Act''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the Bush Administration should not rush into effect
major new controversial regulations in its closing days;
(2) the incoming Administration, working with the Congress,
should review and, if appropriate revise or reject such
``midnight regulations''; and
(3) if legislation is necessary to ensure the new
Administration has this opportunity, that Congress should
enact, and the President should sign, such legislation.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr.
Begich, Mr. Durbin,

[[Page S46]]

Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr.
Lieberman, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 9. A bill to strenghten the United States economy, provide for
more effective border and employment enforcement, and for other
purposes; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 9

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 ``Stronger Economy, Stronger
Borders Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and
the President should sign, legislation to strengthen the
economy, recognize the heritage of the United States as a
nation of immigrants, and amend the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) by--
(1) providing more effective border and employment
enforcement;
(2) preventing illegal immigration; and
(3) reforming and rationalizing avenues for legal
immigration.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, as we begin the 111th Congress, we will
try, once again, to enact comprehensive immigration reforms that have
eluded us in the past several years. With an administration that
understands the critical necessity of meaningful reform and that
understands the policy failures of the last 8 years, I am hopeful that
the new Congress can finally enact legislation consistent with our
history as a nation of immigrants.
The majority leader has included immigration reform as among the
legislative priorities for the new Congress. I look forward to working
with him, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, and others interested in
working toward the goal of immigration reform.
In 2006 and 2007, Congress attempted to pass practical and effective
reforms to our immigration system. In 2006, the Senate did its part and
passed legislation, only to be thwarted by those in the House of
Representatives who opposed dealing with the issue in a meaningful way.
In 2007, the House passed legislation only to have it blocked in the
Senate by Republican Members opposed to effective reform.
If our immigration policies are to be effective and play a role in
restoring America's image around the world, we must reject the failed
policies of the last 8 years. We cannot continue to deny asylum seekers
because they have been forced at the point of a gun to provide
assistance to those engaged in terrorist acts. We cannot continue to
label as terrorist organizations those who have stood by the United
States in armed conflict. We must not tolerate the tragic and needless
death of a person in our custody for lack of basic medical care. We
must ensure that children are not needlessly separated from their
parents and that family unity is respected.
We must move beyond the current policy that is focused on detaining
and deporting those undocumented workers who have been abused and
exploited by American employers but does nothing to change an
environment that remains ripe for these abuses. We must protect the
rights and opportunities of American workers and, at the same time,
ensure that our Nation's farmers and employers have the help they need.
We should improve the opportunities and make more efficient the
processes for those who seek to come to America with the goal of
becoming new Americans, whether to invest in our communities and create
jobs, to be reunited with loved ones, or to seek freedom and
opportunity and a better life. We must also live up to the goal of
family reunification in our immigration policy and join at least 19
other nations that provide immigration equality to same-sex partners of
different nationalities. And I believe we would be wise to reconsider
the effectiveness and cost of a wall along our southern border, which
has adversely affected the fragile environment and vibrant cross-border
culture of an entire region. Such a wall stands as a symbol of fear and
intolerance. This is not what America is about and we can do better.
Those who oppose a realistic solution to address the estimated
millions of people currently living and working in the United States
without proper documentation have offered no alternative solution other
than harsh penalties and more enforcement. The policies of the last 8
years, which have served only to appease the most extreme ideologues,
must be replaced with sensible solutions. I am confident that our
country and our economy will be far more secure when those who are
currently living in the shadows of our society are recognized and
provided the means to become lawful residents, if not a path to
citizenship.
As President-elect Obama's administration considers immigration
issues, I look forward to working closely with them and with the
Senate's leadership to find the best solutions. President-elect Obama's
nominees to lead the Department of Homeland Security and the Department
of Labor understand very well the importance of sensible border
policies and the importance of workers' rights. The American people
look to all of us to forge a consensus for immigration reform that
rejects the extreme ideology that has attended this issue and prevented
real progress.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Levin, Mr. Begich, Mr.
Carper, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Ms.
Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Schumer, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 10. A bill to restore fiscal discipline and begin to address the
long-term fiscal challenges facing the United States, and for other
purposes; read the first time.
Mr. REID. 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. 10

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 ``Fiscal Responsibility Act of
2009''.

SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

It is the sense of Congress that Congress and the President
should restore fiscal discipline and begin to address the
long-term fiscal challenges facing the United States through-
(1) strong pay-as-you-go rules, to help block the approval
of measures that would increase the deficit;
(2) recognition of warnings by both the Government
Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office
that the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path of rising
deficits and debt;
(3) establishment by Congress and the President of a
process--
(A) to analyze--
(i) the current and long-term actuarial financial condition
of the Federal Government; and
(ii) the gap between the projected revenues and
expenditures of the Federal Government;
(B) to identify factors that affect the long-term fiscal
balance of the Federal Government;
(C) to analyze potential courses of action to address
factors that affect the long-term fiscal balance of the
Federal Government;
(D) to seek a bipartisan agreement, or set of agreements,
that will--
(i) significantly improve the Nation's long-term fiscal
imbalances and the gap between projected revenues and
expenditures;
(ii) ensure the economic security of the United States; and
(iii) expand future prosperity and growth for all
Americans;
(4) a thorough review of all Federal spending and tax
expenditures by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury,
that identifies items that are outdated, inefficient, poorly
run, unnecessary, or otherwise undeserving of scarce Federal
resources or that are in need of reform; and
(5) a review of the current system of taxation of the
United States to ensure that burdens are borne fairly and
equitably.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Inouye,
Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Carper, Mrs.
Feinstein, and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 21. A bill to reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and
improve access to women's heath care; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.

[[Page S47]]

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 21

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Prevention
First Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.

TITLE I--TITLE X OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT

Sec. 101. Short title.
Sec. 102. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE II--EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE AND CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE

Sec. 201. Short title.
Sec. 202. Amendments to Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974.
Sec. 203. Amendments to Public Health Service Act relating to the group
market.
Sec. 204. Amendment to Public Health Service Act relating to the
individual market.

TITLE III--EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EDUCATION AND INFORMATION

Sec. 301. Short title.
Sec. 302. Emergency contraception education and information programs.

TITLE IV--COMPASSIONATE ASSISTANCE FOR RAPE EMERGENCIES

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Survivors of sexual assault; provision by hospitals of
emergency contraceptives without charge.

TITLE V--AT-RISK COMMUNITIES TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION ACT

Sec. 501. Short title.
Sec. 502. Teen pregnancy prevention.
Sec. 503. Research.
Sec. 504. General requirements.

TITLE VI--ACCURACY OF CONTRACEPTIVE INFORMATION

Sec. 601. Short title.
Sec. 602. Accuracy of contraceptive information.

TITLE VII--UNINTENDED PREGNANCY REDUCTION ACT

Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Medicaid; clarification of coverage of family planning
services and supplies.
Sec. 703. Expansion of family planning services.
Sec. 704. Effective date.

TITLE VIII--RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION ABOUT LIFE ACT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Assistance to reduce teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other
sexually transmitted diseases and to support healthy
adolescent development.
Sec. 803. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 804. Evaluation of programs.
Sec. 805. Definitions.
Sec. 806. Appropriations.

TITLE IX--PREVENTION THROUGH AFFORDABLE ACCESS

Sec. 901. Short title.
Sec. 902. Restoring and protecting access to discount drug prices for
university-based and safety-net clinics.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds as follows:
(1) Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of
unintended pregnancies as an important health objective for
the Nation to achieve over the first decade of the new
century, a goal first articulated in the 1979 Surgeon
General's Report, Healthy People, and reiterated in Healthy
People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Objectives.
(2) Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(referred to in this section as the ``CDC'') included family
planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health
Achievements in the 20th Century, the United States still has
one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among
industrialized nations.
(3) Each year, nearly half of all pregnancies in the United
States are unintended, and nearly half of unintended
pregnancies end in abortion.
(4) In 2006, 36,200,000 women, more than half of all women
of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services
and supplies to help prevent unintended pregnancy, and nearly
half of those were in need of public support for such care.
(5) The United States has some of the highest rates of
sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among industrialized
nations. In 2006, there were approximately 19,000,000 new
cases of STIs, almost half of them occurring in young people
ages 15 to 24. According to the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, in addition to the burden on public health,
STIs impose a tremendous economic burden with direct medical
costs as high as $14,700,000,000 each year in 2006 dollars.
(6) Contraceptive use can improve overall health by
enabling women to plan and space their pregnancies and has
contributed to dramatic declines in maternal and infant
mortality. Widespread use of contraceptives has been the
driving force in reducing unintended pregnancies and sexually
transmitted infections (STIs), and reducing the need for
abortion in this nation. Contraceptive use also saves public
health dollars. For every dollar spent to provide services in
publicly funded family planning clinics, $4.02 in Medicaid
expenses are saved because unintended births are averted.
(7) Reducing unintended pregnancy improves maternal health
and is an important strategy in efforts to reduce maternal
mortality. Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at
greater risk for physical abuse.
(8) A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater
risk than a child born from an intended pregnancy of low
birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused,
and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy
development.
(9) The ability to control fertility allows couples to
achieve economic stability by facilitating greater
educational achievement and participation in the workforce.
(10) Contraceptives are effective in preventing unintended
pregnancy when used consistently and correctly. Without
contraception, a sexually active woman has an 85 percent
chance of becoming pregnant within a year.
(11) Approximately 50 percent of unintended pregnancies
occur among women who do not use contraception.
(12) Many poor and low-income women cannot afford to
purchase contraceptive services and supplies on their own.
The number of women needing subsidized services has increased
by more than 1,000,000 (7 percent) since 2000. A poor woman
in the United States is now nearly 4 times as likely as a
more affluent woman to have an unplanned pregnancy. Between
1994 and 2001, unintended pregnancy among low-income women
increased by 29 percent, while unintended pregnancy decreased
by 20 percent among women with higher incomes.
(13) Public health programs, such as the Medicaid program
and family planning programs under title X of the Public
Health Service Act, provide high-quality family planning
services and other preventive health care to underinsured or
uninsured individuals who may otherwise lack access to health
care.
(14) Medicaid has become an essential source of support for
the provision of subsidized family planning services and
supplies. It is the single largest source of public funds
supporting these services. In 2001, the program provided 6 in
10 of all public dollars spent on family planning services.
In 2006, 12 percent of women of reproductive age (7,300,000
women ages 15 to 44) looked to Medicaid for their care and 37
percent of poor women of reproductive age rely upon Medicaid.
(15) Approximately 1,400,000 unintended pregnancies and
600,000 abortions are averted each year because of services
provided in publicly funded clinics. In 2006, Title X (of the
Public Health Service Act) service providers performed more
than 2,400,000 Pap tests, 2,400,000 breast exams, and
5,800,000 tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including
652,426 HIV tests and 2,300,000 Chlamydia tests. One in 4
women who obtain reproductive health services from a medical
provider do so at a publicly funded clinic.
(16) The stagnant funding for public family planning
programs in combination with the increasing demand for
subsidized services, the rising costs of contraceptive
services and supplies, and the high cost of improved
screening and treatment for cervical cancer and sexually
transmitted infections has diminished the ability of clinics
receiving funds under title X of the Public Health Services
Act to adequately serve all those in need. At present,
clinics are able to reach just 41 percent of the women
needing subsidized services. Had Title X funding kept up with
inflation since fiscal year 1980, it would now be funded at
$759,000,000, instead of its fiscal year 2007 funding level
of $283,000,000. Taking inflation into account, funding for
Title X in constant dollars is 63 percent lower today than it
was in fiscal year 1980.
(17) While the Medicaid program remains the largest source
of subsidized family planning services, States are facing
significant budgetary pressures to cut their Medicaid
programs, putting many women at risk of losing coverage for
family planning services.
(18) In addition, eligibility under the Medicaid program in
many States is severely restricted, which leaves family
planning services financially out of reach for many poor
women. Many States have demonstrated tremendous success with
Medicaid family planning waivers that allow States to expand
access to Medicaid family planning services. However, the
administrative burden of applying for a waiver poses a
significant barrier to States that would like to expand their
coverage of family planning programs through Medicaid.
(19) As of December of 2008, 27 States offered expanded
family planning benefits as a result of Medicaid family
planning waivers. The cost-effectiveness of these waivers was
affirmed by a recent evaluation funded by the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services. This evaluation of six waivers
found that all family planning programs under such waivers
resulted in significant savings to both the Federal and State
governments. Moreover, the researchers found measurable
reductions in unintended pregnancy.

[[Page S48]]

(20) Although employer-sponsored health plans have improved
coverage of contraceptive services and supplies, largely in
response to State contraceptive coverage laws, there is still
significant room for improvement. The ongoing lack of
coverage in health insurance plans, particularly in self-
insured and individual plans, continues to place effective
forms of contraception beyond the financial reach of many
women.
(21) Including contraceptive coverage in private health
care plans saves employers money. Not covering contraceptives
in employee health plans costs employers 15 to 17 percent
more than providing such coverage.
(22) Approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration,
emergency contraception is a safe and effective way to
prevent unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex. Research
confirms that easier access to emergency contraceptives does
not increase sexual risk-taking or sexually transmitted
diseases.
(23) The available evidence shows that many women do not
know about emergency contraception, do not know where to get
it, or are unable to access it. Overcoming these obstacles
could help ensure that more women use emergency contraception
consistently and correctly.
(24) A November 2006 study of declining pregnancy rates
among teens concluded that the reduction in teen pregnancy
between 1995 and 2002 is primarily the result of increased
use of contraceptives. As such, it is critically important
that teens receive accurate, unbiased information about
contraception.
(25) The American Medical Association, the American Nurses
Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American
Public Health Association, and the Society for Adolescent
Medicine, support responsible sex education that includes
information about both abstinence and contraception.
(26) Teens who receive comprehensive sex education that
includes discussion of contraception as well as abstinence
are more likely than those who receive abstinence-only
messages to delay sex, to have fewer partners, and to use
contraceptives when they do become sexually active.
(27) Government-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage
programs are precluded from discussing contraception except
to talk about failure rates. An October 2006 report by the
Government Accountability Office found that the Department of
Health and Human Services does not review the materials of
recipients of grants administered by such department for
scientific accuracy and requires grantees to review their own
materials for scientific accuracy. The GAO also reported on
the Department's total lack of appropriate and customary
measurements to determine if funded programs are effective.
In addition, a separate letter from the Government
Accountability Office found that the Department of Health and
Human Services is in violation of Federal law by failing to
enforce a requirement under the Public Health Service Act
that Federally-funded grantees working to address the
prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, including
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, must provide
medically accurate information about the effectiveness of
condoms.
(28) Recent scientific reports by the Institute of
Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the Office on
National AIDS Policy stress the need for sex education that
includes messages about abstinence and provides young people
with information about contraception for the prevention of
teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted
diseases.
(29) A 2006 statement from the American Public Health
Association (``APHA'') ``recognizes the importance of
abstinence education, but only as part of a comprehensive
sexuality education program . . . APHA calls for repealing
current federal funding for abstinence-only programs and
replacing it with funding for a new Federal program to
promote comprehensive sexuality education, combining
information about abstinence with age-appropriate sexuality
education.''
(30) Comprehensive sex education programs respect the
diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community
and will complement and augment the sex education children
receive from their families.
(31) Over 60 percent of the 56,300 annual new cases of HIV
infections in the United States occur in youth ages 13
through 24. African American and Latino youth have been
disproportionately affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In
2005, Blacks and Latinos accounted for 84 percent of all new
HIV infections among 13 to 19 year olds and 76 percent of HIV
infections among 20 to 24 year olds in the United States even
though, together, they represent only about 32 percent of
people in these ages. Teens in the United States contract an
estimated 9,000,000 sexually transmitted infections each
year. By age 24, at least 1 in 4 sexually active people
between the ages of 15 and 24 will have contracted a sexually
transmitted infection.
(32) Approximately 50 young people a day, an average of two
young people every hour of every day, are infected with HIV
in the United States.
(33) In 1990, Congress passed the Medicaid Anti-
Discriminatory Drug Price and Patient Benefit Restoration Act
to ensure that Medicaid receives the lowest drug prices in
the marketplace. Congress intentionally protected the
practice of pharmaceutical companies offering charitable
organizations and clinics nominally-priced drugs. As an
unintended consequence of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
birth control prices have skyrocketed for millions of women
who depend on safety net providers for their birth control.
Birth control that previously cost only $5 to $10 per month
is now prohibitively expensive, running as much as $40 or $50
a month. Many family planning health centers have absorbed
much of this price increase, further straining already
limited resources. As the economic crisis worsens, women and
their families are increasingly turning to health care safety
net providers, such as family planning health centers, for a
reliable source of care.

TITLE I--TITLE X OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Title X Family Planning
Services Act of 2009''.

SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

For the purpose of making grants and contracts under
section 1001 of the Public Health Service Act, there are
authorized to be appropriated $700,000,000 for fiscal year
2010 and such sums as may be necessary for each subsequent
fiscal year.

TITLE II--EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE AND CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Equity in Prescription
Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act of 2007''.

SEC. 202. AMENDMENTS TO EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY
ACT OF 1974.

(a) In General.--Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of title
I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 715. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR
CONTRACEPTIVES.

[[Page S49]]

investigational outpatient prescription drugs or devices, or
experimental or investigational outpatient health care
services; or
``(C) as modifying, diminishing, or limiting the rights or
protections of an individual under any other Federal law.
``(2) Limitations.--As used in paragraph (1), the term
`limitation' includes--
``(A) in the case of a contraceptive drug or device,
restricting the type of health care professionals that may
prescribe such drugs or devices, utilization review
provisions, and limits on the volume of prescription drugs or
devices that may be obtained on the basis of a single
consultation with a professional; or
``(B) in the case of an outpatient contraceptive service,
restricting the type of health care professionals that may
provide such services, utilization review provisions,
requirements relating to second opinions prior to the
coverage of such services, and requirements relating to
preauthorizations prior to the coverage of such services.
``(d) Notice Under Group Health Plan.--The imposition of
the requirements of this section shall be treated as a
material modification in the terms of the plan described in
section 102(a)(1), for purposes of assuring notice of such
requirements under the plan, except that the summary
description required to be provided under the last sentence
of section 104(b)(1) with respect to such modification shall
be provided by not later than 60 days after the first day of
the first plan year in which such requirements apply.
``(e) Preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to preempt any provision of State law to the extent
that such State law establishes, implements, or continues in
effect any standard or requirement that provides coverage or
protections for participants or beneficiaries that are
greater than the coverage or protections provided under this
section.
``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term `outpatient
contraceptive services' means consultations, examinations,
procedures, and medical services, provided on an outpatient
basis and related to the use of contraceptive methods
(including natural family planning) to prevent an unintended
pregnancy.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29
U.S.C. 1001) is amended by inserting after the item relating
to section 713 the following:

``Sec. 715. Standards relating to benefits for contraceptives.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after
January 1, 2010.

SEC. 203. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT RELATING TO
THE GROUP MARKET.

(a) In General.--Subpart 2 of part A of title XXVII of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-4 et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 2708. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR
CONTRACEPTIVES.

``(a) Requirements for Coverage.--A group health plan, and
a health insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage
in connection with a group health plan, may not--
``(1) exclude or restrict benefits for prescription
contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, or generic equivalents approved as
substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration, if such
plan or coverage provides benefits for other outpatient
prescription drugs or devices; or
``(2) exclude or restrict benefits for outpatient
contraceptive services if such plan or coverage provides
benefits for other outpatient services provided by a health
care professional (referred to in this section as `outpatient
health care services').
``(b) Prohibitions.--A group health plan, and a health
insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in
connection with a group health plan, may not--
``(1) deny to an individual eligibility, or continued
eligibility, to enroll or to renew coverage under the terms
of the plan because of the individual's or enrollee's use or
potential use of items or services that are covered in
accordance with the requirements of this section;
``(2) provide monetary payments or rebates to a covered
individual to encourage such individual to accept less than
the minimum protections available under this section;
``(3) penalize or otherwise reduce or limit the
reimbursement of a health care professional because such
professional prescribed contraceptive drugs or devices, or
provided contraceptive services, described in subsection (a),
in accordance with this section; or
``(4) provide incentives (monetary or otherwise) to a
health care professional to induce such professional to
withhold from covered individual contraceptive drugs or
devices, or contraceptive services, described in subsection
(a).
``(c) Rules of Construction.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed--
``(A) as preventing a group health plan and a health
insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in
connection with a group health plan from imposing
deductibles, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing or
limitations in relation to--
``(i) benefits for contraceptive drugs under the plan or
coverage, except that such a deductible, coinsurance, or
other cost-sharing or limitation for any such drug shall be
consistent with those imposed for other outpatient
prescription drugs otherwise covered under the plan or
coverage;
``(ii) benefits for contraceptive devices under the plan or
coverage, except that such a deductible, coinsurance, or
other cost-sharing or limitation for any such device shall be
consistent with those imposed for other outpatient
prescription devices otherwise covered under the plan or
coverage; and
``(iii) benefits for outpatient contraceptive services
under the plan or coverage, except that such a deductible,
coinsurance, or other cost-sharing or limitation for any such
service shall be consistent with those imposed for other
outpatient health care services otherwise covered under the
plan or coverage;
``(B) as requiring a group health plan and a health
insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in
connection with a group health plan to cover experimental or
investigational contraceptive drugs or devices, or
experimental or investigational contraceptive services,
described in subsection (a), except to the extent that the
plan or issuer provides coverage for other experimental or
investigational outpatient prescription drugs or devices, or
experimental or investigational outpatient health care
services; or
``(C) as modifying, diminishing, or limiting the rights or
protections of an individual under any other Federal law.
``(2) Limitations.--As used in paragraph (1), the term
`limitation' includes--
``(A) in the case of a contraceptive drug or device,
restricting the type of health care professionals that may
prescribe such drugs or devices, utilization review
provisions, and limits on the volume of prescription drugs or
devices that may be obtained on the basis of a single
consultation with a professional; or
``(B) in the case of an outpatient contraceptive service,
restricting the type of health care professionals that may
provide such services, utilization review provisions,
requirements relating to second opinions prior to the
coverage of such services, and requirements relating to
preauthorizations prior to the coverage of such services.
``(d) Notice.--A group health plan under this part shall
comply with the notice requirement under section 715(d) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 with
respect to the requirements of this section as if such
section applied to such plan.
``(e) Preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to preempt any provision of State law to the extent
that such State law establishes, implements, or continues in
effect any standard or requirement that provides coverage or
protections for enrollees that are greater than the coverage
or protections provided under this section.
``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term `outpatient
contraceptive services' means consultations, examinations,
procedures, and medical services, provided on an outpatient
basis and related to the use of contraceptive methods
(including natural family planning) to prevent an unintended
pregnancy.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to group health plans for plan years
beginning on or after January 1, 2010.

SEC. 204. AMENDMENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT RELATING TO
THE INDIVIDUAL MARKET.

(a) In General.--Part B of title XXVII of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-41 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating the first subpart 3 (relating to other
requirements) as subpart 2; and
(2) by adding at the end of subpart 2 the following:

``SEC. 2754. STANDARDS RELATING TO BENEFITS FOR
CONTRACEPTIVES.

``The provisions of section 2708 shall apply to health
insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in
the individual market in the same manner as they apply to
health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance
issuer in connection with a group health plan in the small or
large group market.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply with respect to health insurance coverage
offered, sold, issued, renewed, in effect, or operated in the
individual market on or after January 1, 2008.

TITLE III--EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EDUCATION AND INFORMATION

SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Emergency Contraception
Education Act of 2009''.

SEC. 302. EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
PROGRAMS.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Emergency contraception.--The term ``emergency
contraception'' means a drug or device (as the terms are
defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) or a drug regimen that is--
(A) used after sexual relations;
(B) prevents pregnancy, by preventing ovulation,
fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a
uterus; and
(C) approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
(2) Health care provider.--The term ``health care
provider'' means an individual who is licensed or certified
under State law to provide health care services and who is
operating within the scope of such license.
(3) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has

[[Page S50]]

the same meaning given such term in section 101(a) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(b) Emergency Contraception Public Education Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Director
of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall
develop and disseminate to the public information on
emergency contraception.
(2) Dissemination.--The Secretary may disseminate
information under paragraph (1) directly or through
arrangements with nonprofit organizations, consumer groups,
institutions of higher education, Federal, State, or local
agencies, clinics, and the media.
(3) Information.--The information disseminated under
paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, a description of
emergency contraception and an explanation of the use,
safety, efficacy, and availability of such contraception.
(c) Emergency Contraception Information Program for Health
Care Providers.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Administrator of the Health Resources and Services
Administration and in consultation with major medical and
public health organizations, shall develop and disseminate to
health care providers information on emergency contraception.
(2) Information.--The information disseminated under
paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum--
(A) information describing the use, safety, efficacy, and
availability of emergency contraception;
(B) a recommendation regarding the use of such
contraception in appropriate cases; and
(C) information explaining how to obtain copies of the
information developed under subsection (b) for distribution
to the patients of the providers.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may
be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

TITLE IV--COMPASSIONATE ASSISTANCE FOR RAPE EMERGENCIES

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Compassionate Assistance
for Rape Emergencies Act of 2009''.

SEC. 402. SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT; PROVISION BY HOSPITALS
OF EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTIVES WITHOUT CHARGE.

(a) In General.--Federal funds may not be provided to a
hospital under any health-related program, unless the
hospital meets the conditions specified in subsection (b) in
the case of--
(1) any woman who presents at the hospital and states that
she is a victim of sexual assault, or is accompanied by
someone who states she is a victim of sexual assault; and
(2) any woman who presents at the hospital whom hospital
personnel have reason to believe is a victim of sexual
assault.
(b) Assistance for Victims.--The conditions specified in
this subsection regarding a hospital and a woman described in
subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) The hospital promptly provides the woman with medically
and factually accurate and unbiased written and oral
information about emergency contraception, including
information explaining that--
(A) emergency contraception does not cause an abortion; and
(B) emergency contraception is effective in most cases in
preventing pregnancy after unprotected sex.
(2) The hospital promptly offers emergency contraception to
the woman, and promptly provides such contraception to her on
her request.
(3) The information provided pursuant to paragraph (1) is
in clear and concise language, is readily comprehensible, and
meets such conditions regarding the provision of the
information in languages other than English as the Secretary
may establish.
(4) The services described in paragraphs (1) through (3)
are not denied because of the inability of the woman or her
family to pay for the services.
(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ``emergency contraception'' means a drug, drug
regimen, or device that--
(A) is used postcoitally;
(B) prevents pregnancy by delaying ovulation, preventing
fertilization of an egg, or preventing implantation of an egg
in a uterus; and
(C) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
(2) The term ``hospital'' has the meanings given such term
in title XVIII of the Social Security Act, including the
meaning applicable in such title for purposes of making
payments for emergency services to hospitals that do not have
agreements in effect under such title.
(3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.
(4) The term ``sexual assault'' means coitus in which the
woman involved does not consent or lacks the legal capacity
to consent.
(d) Effective Date; Agency Criteria.--This section takes
effect upon the expiration of the 180-day period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this Act. Not later than 30 days
prior to the expiration of such period, the Secretary shall
publish in the Federal Register criteria for carrying out
this section.

TITLE V--AT-RISK COMMUNITIES TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION ACT

SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``At-Risk Communities Teen
Pregnancy Prevention Act of 2009''.

SEC. 502. TEENAGE PREGNANCY PREVENTION.

Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
399N the following section:

``SEC. 399N-1. TEENAGE PREGNANCY PREVENTION GRANTS.

``(a) Authority.--The Secretary may award on a competitive
basis grants to public and private entities to establish or
expand teenage pregnancy prevention programs.
``(b) Grant Recipients.--Grant recipients under this
section may include State and local not-for-profit coalitions
working to prevent teenage pregnancy, State, local, and
tribal agencies, schools, entities that provide after-school
programs, and community and faith-based groups.
``(c) Priority.--In selecting grant recipients under this
section, the Secretary shall give--
``(1) highest priority to applicants seeking assistance for
programs targeting communities or populations in which--
``(A) teenage pregnancy or birth rates are higher than the
corresponding State average; or
``(B) teenage pregnancy or birth rates are increasing; and
``(2) priority to applicants seeking assistance for
programs that--
``(A) will benefit underserved or at-risk populations such
as young males or immigrant youths; or
``(B) will take advantage of other available resources and
be coordinated with other programs that serve youth, such as
workforce development and after school programs.
``(d) Use of Funds.--Funds received by an entity as a grant
under this section shall be used for programs that--
``(1) replicate or substantially incorporate the elements
of one or more teenage pregnancy prevention programs that
have been proven (on the basis of rigorous scientific
research) to delay sexual intercourse or sexual activity,
increase condom or contraceptive use without increasing
sexual activity, or reduce teenage pregnancy; and
``(2) incorporate one or more of the following strategies
for preventing teenage pregnancy: encouraging teenagers to
delay sexual activity; sex and HIV education; interventions
for sexually active teenagers; preventive health services;
youth development programs; service learning programs; and
outreach or media programs.
``(e) Complete Information.--Programs receiving funds under
this section that choose to provide information on HIV/AIDS
or contraception or both must provide information that is
complete and medically accurate.
``(f) Relation to Abstinence-Only Programs.--Funds under
this section are not intended for use by abstinence-only
education programs. Abstinence-only education programs that
receive Federal funds through the Maternal and Child Health
Block Grant, the Administration for Children and Families,
the Adolescent Family Life Program, and any other program
that uses the definition of `abstinence education' found in
section 510(b) of the Social Security Act are ineligible for
funding.
``(g) Applications.--Each entity seeking a grant under this
section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
``(h) Matching Funds.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not award a grant to
an applicant for a program under this section unless the
applicant demonstrates that it will pay, from funds derived
from non-Federal sources, at least 25 percent of the cost of
the program.
``(2) Applicant's share.--The applicant's share of the cost
of a program shall be provided in cash or in kind.
``(i) Supplementation of Funds.--An entity that receives
funds as a grant under this section shall use the funds to
supplement and not supplant funds that would otherwise be
available to the entity for teenage pregnancy prevention.
``(j) Evaluations.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) conduct or provide for a rigorous evaluation of 10
percent of programs for which a grant is awarded under this
section;
``(B) collect basic data on each program for which a grant
is awarded under this section; and
``(C) upon completion of the evaluations referred to in
subparagraph (A), submit to the Congress a report that
includes a detailed statement on the effectiveness of grants
under this section.
``(2) Cooperation by grantees.--Each grant recipient under
this section shall provide such information and cooperation
as may be required for an evaluation under paragraph (1).
``(k) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
`rigorous scientific research' means based on a program
evaluation that:
``(1) Measured impact on sexual or contraceptive behavior,
pregnancy or childbearing.
``(2) Employed an experimental or quasi-experimental design
with well-constructed and appropriate comparison groups.
``(3) Had a sample size large enough (at least 100 in the
combined treatment and control group) and a follow-up
interval long

[[Page S51]]

enough (at least six months) to draw valid conclusions about
impact.
``(l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such
sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2010 and each
subsequent fiscal year.''.

SEC. 503. RESEARCH.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, shall make grants to public
or nonprofit private entities to conduct, support, and
coordinate research on the prevention of teen pregnancy in
eligible communities, including research on the factors
contributing to the disproportionate rates of teen pregnancy
in such communities.
(b) Research.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall support research
that--
(1) investigates and determines the incidence and
prevalence of teen pregnancy in communities described in such
subsection;
(2) examines--
(A) the extent of the impact of teen pregnancy on--
(i) the health and well-being of teenagers in the
communities; and
(ii) the scholastic achievement of such teenagers;
(B) the variance in the rates of teen pregnancy by--
(i) location (such as inner cities, inner suburbs, and
outer suburbs);
(ii) population subgroup (such as Hispanic, Asian-Pacific
Islander, African-American, Native American); and
(iii) level of acculturation;
(C) the importance of the physical and social environment
as a factor in placing communities at risk of increased rates
of teen pregnancy; and
(D) the importance of aspirations as a factor affecting
young women's risk of teen pregnancy; and
(3) is used to develop--
(A) measures to address race, ethnicity, socioeconomic
status, environment, and educational attainment and the
relationship to the incidence and prevalence of teen
pregnancy; and
(B) efforts to link the measures to relevant databases,
including health databases.
(c) Priority.--In making grants under subsection (a), the
Secretary of Health and Human Services shall give priority to
research that incorporates--
(1) interdisciplinary approaches; or
(2) a strong emphasis on community-based participatory
research.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there is authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the
fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

SEC. 504. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

(a) Medically Accurate Information.--A grant may be made
under this title only if the applicant involved agrees that
all information provided pursuant to the grant will be age-
appropriate, factually and medically accurate and complete,
and scientifically based.
(b) Cultural Context of Services.--A grant may be made
under this title only if the applicant involved agrees that
information, activities, and services under the grant that
are directed toward a particular population group will be
provided in the language and cultural context that is most
appropriate for individuals in such group.
(c) Application for Grant.--A grant may be made under this
title only if an application for the grant is submitted to
the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the
application is in such form, is made in such manner, and
contains such agreements, assurances, and information as the
Secretary of Health and Human Services determines to be
necessary to carry out the program involved.

TITLE VI--ACCURACY OF CONTRACEPTIVE INFORMATION

SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Truth in Contraception Act
of 2009''.

SEC. 602. ACCURACY OF CONTRACEPTIVE INFORMATION.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any information
concerning the use of a contraceptive provided through any
federally funded sex education, family life education,
abstinence education, comprehensive health education, or
character education program shall be medically accurate and
shall include health benefits and failure rates relating to
the use of such contraceptive.

TITLE VII--UNINTENDED PREGNANCY REDUCTION ACT

SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Unintended Pregnancy
Reduction Act of 2009''.

SEC. 702. MEDICAID; CLARIFICATION OF COVERAGE OF FAMILY
PLANNING SERVICES AND SUPPLIES.

Section 1937(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1396u-7(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(5) Coverage of family planning services and supplies.--
Notwithstanding the previous provisions of this section, a
State may not provide for medical assistance through
enrollment of an individual with benchmark coverage or
benchmark-equivalent coverage under this section unless such
coverage includes for any individual described in section
1905(a)(4)(C), medical assistance for family planning
services and supplies in accordance with such section.''.

SEC. 703. EXPANSION OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES.

(a) Coverage as Mandatory Categorically Needy Group.--
(1) In general.--Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(i) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i)) is amended--
(A) in subclause (VI), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subclause (VII), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subclause:

``(VIII) who are described in subsection (dd) (relating to
individuals who meet the income standards for pregnant
women);''.

(2) Group described.--Section 1902 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(dd)(1) Individuals described in this subsection are
individuals--
``(A) meet at least the income eligibility standards
established under the State plan as of January 1, 2009, for
pregnant women or such higher income eligibility standard for
such women as the State may establish; and
``(B) are not pregnant.
``(2) At the option of a State, individuals described in
this subsection may include individuals who are determined to
meet the income eligibility standards referred to in
paragraph (1)(A) under the terms and conditions applicable to
making eligibility determinations for medical assistance
under this title under a waiver to provide the benefits
described in clause (XV) of the matter following subparagraph
(G) of section 1902(a)(10) granted to the State under section
1115 as of January 1, 2007.''.
(3) Limitation on benefits.--Section 1902(a)(10) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)) is amended in
the matter following subparagraph (G)--
(A) by striking ``and (XIV)'' and inserting ``(XIV)''; and
(B) by inserting ``, and (XV) the medical assistance made
available to an individual described in subsection (dd) shall
be limited to family planning services and supplies described
in 1905(a)(4)(C) including medical diagnosis and treatment
services that are provided pursuant to a family planning
service in a family planning setting;'' after ``cervical
cancer''.
(4) Conforming amendments.--Section 1905(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1)--
(A) in clause (xii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(B) in clause (xii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(C) by inserting after clause (xiii) the following:
``(xiv) individuals described in section 1902(dd),''.
(b) Presumptive Eligibility.--
(1) In general.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
1920B the following:

``presumptive eligibility for family planning services

``Sec. 1920C. (a) State Option.--A State plan approved
under section 1902 may provide for making medical assistance
available to an individual described in section 1902(dd)
(relating to individuals who meet certain income eligibility
standards) during a presumptive eligibility period. In the
case of an individual described in section 1902(dd)), such
medical assistance shall be limited to family planning
services and supplies described in 1905(a)(4)(C) including
medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided
pursuant to a family planning service in a family planning
setting.
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
``(1) Presumptive eligibility period.--The term
`presumptive eligibility period' means, with respect to an
individual described in subsection (a), the period that--
``(A) begins with the date on which a qualified entity
determines, on the basis of preliminary information, that the
individual is described in section 1902(dd); and
``(B) ends with (and includes) the earlier of--
``(i) the day on which a determination is made with respect
to the eligibility of such individual for services under the
State plan; or
``(ii) in the case of such an individual who does not file
an application by the last day of the month following the
month during which the entity makes the determination
referred to in subparagraph (A), such last day.
``(2) Qualified entity.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term
`qualified entity' means any entity that--
``(i) is eligible for payments under a State plan approved
under this title; and
``(ii) is determined by the State agency to be capable of
making determinations of the type described in paragraph
(1)(A).
``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed as preventing a State from limiting the
classes of entities that may become qualified entities.
``(c) Administration.--
``(1) In general.--The State agency shall provide qualified
entities with--
``(A) such forms as are necessary for an application to be
made by an individual described in subsection (a) for medical
assistance under the State plan; and

[[Page S52]]

``(B) information on how to assist such individuals in
completing and filing such forms.
``(2) Notification requirements.--A qualified entity that
determines under subsection (b)(1)(A) that an individual
described in subsection (a) is presumptively eligible for
medical assistance under a State plan shall--
``(A) notify the State agency of the determination within 5
working days after the date on which determination is made;
and
``(B) inform such individual at the time the determination
is made that an application for medical assistance is
required to be made by not later than the last day of the
month following the month during which the determination is
made.
``(3) Application for medical assistance.--In the case of
an individual described in subsection (a) who is determined
by a qualified entity to be presumptively eligible for
medical assistance under a State plan, the individual shall
apply for medical assistance by not later than the last day
of the month following the month during which the
determination is made.
``(d) Payment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
title, medical assistance that--
``(1) is furnished to an individual described in subsection
(a)--
``(A) during a presumptive eligibility period;
``(B) by a entity that is eligible for payments under the
State plan; and
``(2) is included in the care and services covered by the
State plan, shall be treated as medical assistance provided
by such plan for purposes of clause (4) of the first sentence
of section 1905(b).''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Section 1902(a)(47) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396a(a)(47)) is amended by inserting before the
semicolon at the end the following: ``and provide for making
medical assistance available to individuals described in
subsection (a) of section 1920C during a presumptive
eligibility period in accordance with such section.''.
(B) Section 1903(u)(1)(D)(v) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b(u)(1)(D)(v)) is amended--
(i) by striking ``or for'' and inserting ``, for''; and
(ii) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or
for medical assistance provided to an individual described in
subsection (a) of section 1920C during a presumptive
eligibility period under such section''.

SEC. 704. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this title take effect on October 1, 2009.
(b) Extension of Effective Date for State Law Amendment.--
In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) which the Secretary of
Health and Human Services determines requires State
legislation in order for the plan to meet the additional
requirements imposed by the amendments made by this title,
the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply
with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of
its failure to meet these additional requirements before the
first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the
close of the first regular session of the State legislature
that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act. For
purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State
that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the
session is considered to be a separate regular session of the
State legislature.

TITLE VIII--RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION ABOUT LIFE ACT

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Responsible Education
About Life Act of 2009''.

SEC. 802. ASSISTANCE TO REDUCE TEEN PREGNANCY, HIV/AIDS, AND
OTHER SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES AND TO
SUPPORT HEALTHY ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT.

(a) In General.--Each eligible State shall be eligible to
receive from the Secretary of Health and Human Services, for
each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014, a grant to
conduct programs of family life education, including
education on both abstinence and contraception for the
prevention of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted
diseases, including HIV/AIDS.
(b) Requirements for Family Life Programs.--For purposes of
this title, a program of family life education is a program
that--
(1) is age-appropriate and medically accurate;
(2) does not teach or promote religion;
(3) teaches that abstinence is the only sure way to avoid
pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases;
(4) stresses the value of abstinence while not ignoring
those young people who have had or are having sexual
intercourse;
(5) provides information about the health benefits and side
effects of all contraceptives and barrier methods as a means
to prevent pregnancy and reduce the risk of contracting
sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS;
(6) encourages family communication between parent and
child about sexuality;
(7) teaches young people the skills to make responsible
decisions about sexuality, including how to avoid unwanted
verbal, physical, and sexual advances; and
(8) teaches young people how alcohol and drug use can
effect responsible decision making.
(c) Additional Activities.--In carrying out a program of
family life education, a State may expend a grant under
subsection (a) to carry out educational and motivational
activities that help young people--
(1) gain knowledge about the physical, emotional,
biological, and hormonal changes of adolescence and
subsequent stages of human maturation;
(2) develop the knowledge and skills necessary to ensure
and protect their sexual and reproductive health from
unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease,
including HIV/AIDS throughout their lifespan;
(3) gain knowledge about the specific involvement and
responsibility of males in sexual decision making;
(4) develop healthy attitudes and values about adolescent
growth and development, body image, racial and ethnic
diversity, and other related subjects;
(5) develop and practice healthy life skills, including
goal-setting, decision making, negotiation, communication,
and stress management;
(6) develop healthy relationships, including the prevention
of dating and relationship violence;
(7) promote self-esteem and positive interpersonal skills
focusing on relationship dynamics, including friendships,
dating, romantic involvement, marriage and family
interactions; and
(8) prepare for the adult world by focusing on educational
and career success, including developing skills for
employment preparation, job seeking, independent living,
financial self-sufficiency, and workplace productivity.

SEC. 803. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

It is the sense of Congress that while States are not
required under this title to provide matching funds, with
respect to grants authorized under section 802(a), they are
encouraged to do so.

SEC. 804. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--For the purpose of evaluating the
effectiveness of programs of family life education carried
out with a grant under section 802, evaluations of such
program shall be carried out in accordance with subsections
(b) and (c).
(b) National Evaluation.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide for a national
evaluation of a representative sample of programs of family
life education carried out with grants under section 802. A
condition for the receipt of such a grant is that the State
involved agree to cooperate with the evaluation. The purposes
of the national evaluation shall be the determination of--
(A) the effectiveness of such programs in helping to delay
the initiation of sexual intercourse and other high-risk
behaviors;
(B) the effectiveness of such programs in preventing
adolescent pregnancy;
(C) the effectiveness of such programs in preventing
sexually transmitted disease, including HIV/AIDS;
(D) the effectiveness of such programs in increasing
contraceptive knowledge and contraceptive behaviors when
sexual intercourse occurs; and
(E) a list of best practices based upon essential
programmatic components of evaluated programs that have led
to success in subparagraphs (A) through (D).
(2) Report.--A final report providing the results of the
national evaluation under paragraph (1) shall be submitted to
Congress not later than March 31, 2015, with an interim
report provided on an annual basis at the end of each fiscal
year under section 802(a).
(c) Individual State Evaluations.--
(1) In general.--A condition for the receipt of a grant
under section 802 is that the State involved agree to provide
for the evaluation of the programs of family education
carried out with the grant in accordance with the following:
(A) The evaluation will be conducted by an external,
independent entity.
(B) The purposes of the evaluation will be the
determination of--
(i) the effectiveness of such programs in helping to delay
the initiation of sexual intercourse and other high-risk
behaviors;
(ii) the effectiveness of such programs in preventing
adolescent pregnancy;
(iii) the effectiveness of such programs in preventing
sexually transmitted disease, including HIV/AIDS; and
(iv) the effectiveness of such programs in increasing
contraceptive knowledge and contraceptive behaviors when
sexual intercourse occurs.
(2) Use of grant.--A condition for the receipt of a grant
under section 802 is that the State involved agree that not
more than 10 percent of the grant will be expended for the
evaluation under paragraph (1).

SEC. 805. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this title:
(1) The term ``eligible State'' means a State that submits
to the Secretary an application for a grant under section 802
that is in such form, is made in such manner, and contains
such agreements, assurances, and information as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to carry out this title.
(2) The term ``HIV/AIDS'' means the human immunodeficiency
virus, and includes acquired immune deficiency syndrome.
(3) The term ``medically accurate'', with respect to
information, means information that is supported by research,
recognized as accurate and objective by leading medical,
psychological, psychiatric, and public health organizations
and agencies, and where relevant, published in peer review
journals.
(4) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of Health
and Human Services.

[[Page S53]]

SEC. 806. APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--For the purpose of carrying out this
title, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2010 through
2014.
(b) Allocations.--Of the amounts appropriated under
subsection (a) for a fiscal year--
(1) not more than 7 percent may be used for the
administrative expenses of the Secretary in carrying out this
title for that fiscal year; and
(2) not more than 10 percent may be used for the national
evaluation under section 804(b).

TITLE IX--PREVENTION THROUGH AFFORDABLE ACCESS

SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Prevention Through
Affordable Access Act''.

SEC. 902. RESTORING AND PROTECTING ACCESS TO DISCOUNT DRUG
PRICES FOR UNIVERSITY-BASED AND SAFETY-NET
CLINICS.

(a) Restoring Nominal Pricing.--Section 1927(c)(1)(D)(i) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-8(c)(1)(D)(i)) is
amended--
(1) by redesignating subclause (IV) as subclause (VI); and
(2) by inserting after subclause (III) the following new
subclauses:

``(IV) An entity that is operated by a health center of an
institution of higher education, the primary purpose of which
is to provide health services to students of that
institution.
``(V) An entity that is a public or private nonprofit
entity that provides a service or services described under
section 1001(a) of the Public Health Service Act.''.

(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective as of the date of the enactment of this
Act.
______

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Ensign, Mr.
Cornyn, and Mr. Martinez):
S. 35. A bill to provide a permanent deduction for State and local
general sales taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to
permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed
citizens in many States of this great Nation.
State and local governments have various alternatives for raising
revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a
combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income
taxes have been able to offset some of their federal income taxes by
receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before
1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes.
The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not
have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to
one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of
government.
Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after
1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated.
This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home
State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the
lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay
State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently.
It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the
revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing
the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not
treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing
tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for
States to establish income taxes over sales taxes.
This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the
Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a
projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming
the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the
deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1
billion to $1.4 billion in gross State product.
Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the
sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. In 2006
Congress extended the sales tax deduction for an additional 2 years.
Last year, Congress extended the deduction for 2 more years.
Unfortunately, the deduction is only in effect through 2009, and we
must act to prevent the inequity from returning.
The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by
making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will
permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and
citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax
deduction.
This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and
defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope
my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 35

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DEDUCTION OF STATE AND
LOCAL GENERAL SALES TAXES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 201
of the Tax Extenders and Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, is
amended by striking ``, and before January 1, 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 36. A bill to repeat the perimeter rule for Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Ensign in introducing the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2009.
This bill would remove the arbitrary restrictions that prevent
Americans from having an array of options for non-stop air travel
between airports in Western states and LaGuardia International Airport
and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
LaGuardia restricts the departure or arrival of non-stop flights to
or from airports that are farther then 1,500 miles from LaGuardia.
Washington National has a similar restriction for non-stop flights to
or from airports 1,250 miles from Washington National. These
restrictions are commonly referred to as the ``perimeter rule.'' This
bill would abolish these archaic limitations that reduce consumers'
options for convenient flights and competitive fares.
The original purpose of the perimeter rule was to promote LaGuardia
and Washington National as airports for business travelers flying to
and from East Coast and Midwest cities and to promote traffic to other
airports by diverting long haul flights to Newark and Kennedy airports
in the New York area and the Dulles airport in the Washington area.
However, over the years, Congress has granted numerous exceptions to
the perimeter rule because the air traveling public is eager for
options. Today, exceptions are made for nonstop flights between
LaGuardia and Denver and between Washington National and Denver, Las
Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Seattle. Rather then
continuing to take a piecemeal approach to promoting consumer choice, I
urge Congress to take this opportunity once and for all to do away with
this outdated rule.
I continue to believe that Americans should have access to air travel
at the lowest possible cost and with the most convenience for their
schedule. Therefore, I have always advocated for the removal of any
artificial barrier that prevents free market competition. In 2004, I
co-sponsored legislation to repeal the Wright Amendment which
prohibited flights from Dallas' Love Field airport to 43 states. This
year, I am proud to once again join with my colleagues to eliminate
another unnecessary restraint through the Abolishing Aviation Barriers
Act of 2009.
A 1999 study by the Transportation Research Board, the most recent
available, stated that perimeter rules ``no longer serve their original
purpose and have produced too many adverse side effects, including
barriers to competition . . . The rules arbitrarily prevent some
airlines from extending their networks to these airports; they
discourage competition among the airports in the region and among the
airlines that use these airports; and they are subject to chronic
attempts by special interest groups to obtain exemptions.'' That same
year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, stated that the

[[Page S54]]

``practical effect'' of the perimeter rule ``has been to limit entry''
of other carriers and found that airfares at LaGuardia and Washington
National are approximately 50 percent higher on average than fares at
similar airports unconstrained by the perimeter rule. Such an
anticompetitive rule should not remain in effect, particularly where
its anticompetitive impact has long been recognized.
For this reason, I will continue the struggle to try to remove the
perimeter rule and other anti-competitive restrictions that increase
consumer costs and decrease convenience for no apparent benefit.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 37. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
permanently extend the research credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Economic Growth
Through Innovation Act of 2009. This bill would make permanent the
current research and development tax credit. Otherwise, this tax credit
will expire on December 31, 2009.
A permanent credit would provide an incentive to innovate, and remove
uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make research and
development investment decisions for 2010 and beyond. The research and
development tax credit was first established in 1981 and has been
extended and revised repeatedly since then. Failure to make the tax
credit permanent has led to reduced investment in research, which has
led to fewer jobs being created in the United States. Tax policies have
a powerful influence on business investment and hiring decisions, and
that is why I have chosen to introduce this bill on the first day of
the 111th Congress. Additionally, both President-elect Obama and I were
in full agreement during the campaign that making permanent the
research and development tax credit is critical to spurring investment
in developing technologies.
In the 1980s, the U.S. was a leader among nations for providing the
most generous tax treatment of research and development. By 2004, the
most recent study, the United States had fallen to 17th, which explains
why the U.S. is no longer considered by many to be the world leader in
innovation and technology. A permanent, meaningful research and
development tax credit will ensure that businesses keep funding
research and development, which may lead to numerous new discoveries in
the U.S. such as fuel-efficient vehicles, cancer treatment or the
development of clean energy.
Studies have shown that on average, companies invest $94 in research
and development for every $6 the Federal Government invests in the tax
credit. While I understand that some economists have estimated this tax
credit may cost many billions of dollars in tax revenue to the Federal
government, I believe it is essential to spurring an economic recovery.
Companies of all sizes, in a wide range of industries, have taken
advantage of the research and development tax credit during its
existence. According to a recent study by Ernst & Young, 17,700
businesses claimed $6.6 billion research and development tax credits on
their tax returns in 2005, the most recent year available. Almost a
quarter of these businesses were small businesses with $1 million of
assets or less, and almost half were businesses with assets of $1-$5
million, which is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. Firms in the
manufacturing, information and services sectors claimed the majority of
the credit, and the states with the highest number of companies
reporting research and development activity include those States that
have been hit the hardest by the depressed economy such as Michigan,
Pennsylvania and California.
Congress has endorsed the credit by extending it 13 times since
enactment, and several times the credit has been reinstated
retroactively. Yet, it has never been made permanent, creating a less
certain investment atmosphere. With so many Republicans and Democrats
in agreement that this tax credit must be made permanent, including
President-elect Obama, I hope this bill will be given swift
consideration and signed into law during the first few months of 2009
to increase our nation's ability to innovate, create jobs and improve
our sagging economy.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
S. 38. A bill to establish a United States Boxing Commission to
administer the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator
Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2009.
This legislation is virtually identical to a measure reported by the
Commerce Committee during the first executive session of the 110th
Congress, after being approved unanimously by the Senate in 2005.
Simply put, this bill would better protect professional boxing from the
fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have plagued the
sport for far too many years, and that have devastated physically and
financially many of our Nation's professional boxers. I remain
committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act through the
Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote favorably on
this important legislation.
Since 1996, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of
professional boxing--and for very good reason. With rare exception,
professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder.
Often they are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our
nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali
Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety
standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for
boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical
business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning
organizations. But further action is needed.
The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing
Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards
for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to
be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary
practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity
and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most
importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory
entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards
for certain aspects of the sport.
Current law has improved to some extent the state of professional
boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport
remains at risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office spent
more than six months studying ten of the country's busiest state and
tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that many State
and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal boxing
law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal
and State officials.
Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has
contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical
practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led
many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an
effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional
Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.
Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States
that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other
regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices.
Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of
patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national
self-regulating organization--though preferable to Federal government
oversight is not a realistic option.
This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission
``USBC'' or Commission. The Commission would be responsible for
protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional
boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity,
fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the
Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with
other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced;
oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work
with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety,
integrity, and professionalism of

[[Page S55]]

professional boxing in the United States.
The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and
sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to
revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop
unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a
boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.
It is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the
purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of
State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work
in consultation with local commissions, and it would only exercise its
authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point
of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that
it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its
powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or
supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with
the provisions of Federal boxing law.
Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need
in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The
establishment of the USBC would address that need. The problems that
plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of
the sport in the eyes of the public and--more importantly--compromise
the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides
an effective approach to curbing these problems.
As this measure continues through the legislative process, I fully
expect Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and
every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to
Washington in a bipartisan manner. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 39. A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly
known as the ``Bennett Freeze''; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that
would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the
``Bennett Freeze.'' Passage of this legislation would officially mark
the end of roughly 40 years of litigation and land-lock between the
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe.
For decades the Navajo and the Hopi have been engrossed in a bitter
dispute over land rights in the Black Mesa area just south of Kayenta,
Arizona. The conflict extends as far back as 1882 when the boundaries
of the Hopi and Navajo reservations were initially defined resulting in
a tragic saga of litigation and damaging federal Indian policy. By
1966, relations between the tribes became so strained over development
and access to sacred religious sites in the disputed area that the
federal government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed
reservation land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing
development in the Black Mesa area and restricted repairs on existing
dwellings. This injunction became known as the ``Bennett Freeze,''
named after former BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed the ban.
The Bennett Freeze was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent
one tribe taking advantage of another until the land dispute could be
settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere near resolution, and
the construction freeze ultimately devastated economic development in
northern Arizona for years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000
people currently living in the Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions
that haven't changed in half a century. While the population of the
area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced
to live together in homes that have been declared unfit for human
habitation by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations.
Only 3 percent of the families affected by the Bennett Freeze have
electricity. Only 10 percent have running water. Almost none have
natural gas.
In September 2005, the Navajo and Hopi peoples' desire to live
together in mutual respect prevailed when both tribes approved an
intergovernmental agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in
the Bennett Freeze area. This landmark agreement also clarifies the
boundaries of the Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures
that access to religious sites of both tribes in protected. As such,
the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the Department of Interior all
support congressional legislation to lift the freeze.
The bill I am introducing today would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The
intergovernmental compact approved last year by both tribes, the
Department of Interior, and signed by the U.S. District Court for
Arizona, marks a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. Lifting the Bennett
Freeze gives us an opportunity to put decades of conflict between the
Navajo and Hopi behind us.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 40. A bill to designate Fossil Creek, a tributary of the Verde
River in the State of Arizona, as a component of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague,
Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a
Wild and Scenic River.
Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush
riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent
blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde
River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through
east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of
which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species
inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range
lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also
supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial
streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.
Fossil Creek was named in the 1800s when early explorers described
the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated
with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early
1900s, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power
generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow.
They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and
generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over
time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service, APS, one of
the state's largest electric utility providers serving more than a
million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1
percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made
ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to
its pre-settlement conditions.
APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land
managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the
Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian
ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows
to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a
fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable
opportunity to reintroduce at least six threatened and endangered
native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently
living in the creek.
There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate
staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the
riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest
Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of
visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible
recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged,
we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration
efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to
ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to
Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found eligible for Wild
and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has
widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands
potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the
Forest Service and will not affect private

[[Page S56]]

property owners. I fully expect that as this measure continues through
the legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding offsets are
provided to it and every other spending measure as we work to restore
fiscal discipline to Washington in a bipartisan manner.
Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly
from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic
designation.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
S. 49. A bill to help Federal prosecutors and investigators combat
public corruption by strengthening and clarifying the law; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn
once again to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements
Act of 2009, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of
Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and
prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide.
The start of a new Congress presents a unique opportunity to restore
the faith of the American people in their government. That is why I
sought to offer an early version of this bill as my first amendment two
years ago when that new Congress began. Regrettably, a Republican
objection to it prevented its adoption at that time.
As we have seen in recent months, public corruption can erode the
trust the American people have in those who are given the privilege of
public service. Too often, though, loopholes in existing laws have
meant that corrupt conduct can go unchecked.
Make no mistake: The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of
government. This is a problem that victimizes every American by
chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Rooting out the
kinds of public corruption that have resulted in convictions of members
of both the Senate and the House, and many others, requires us to give
prosecutors the tools and resources they need to investigate and
prosecute criminal public corruption offenses. This bill will do
exactly that.
The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today will provide
investigators and prosecutors more time and, even more crucially, more
resources to pursue public corruption cases. It also amends several key
statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to
prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or
defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities.
The bill provides significant and much-needed additional funding for
public corruption enforcement. Since September 11, 2001, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, FBI, resources have been shifted away from the
pursuit of white collar crime to counterterrorism. Director Mueller has
said that public corruption is among the FBI's top investigative
priorities, but a September 2005 report by the Department of Justice
Inspector General found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall
reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. More
recently, a study by the research group Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse found that the prosecution of all kinds of white collar
crimes is down 27 percent since 2000, and official corruption cases
have dropped in the same period by 14 percent. The Wall Street Journal
reported in 2007 that the investigation of an elected Federal official
stalled for six months because the investigating U.S. Attorney's Office
could not afford to replace the prosecutor who had previously handled
the case. We must reverse this trend and make sure that law enforcement
has the tools and the resources it needs to confront these serious and
corrosive crimes.
Efforts to combat terrorism and public corruption are not mutually
exclusive. A bribed customs official who allows a terrorist to smuggle
contraband into our country, or a corrupt consular officer who
illegally supplies U.S. entry visas to would-be terrorists can cause
grave harm to our national security.
The bill also extends the statute of limitations from 5 to 6 years
for the most serious public corruption offenses. Public corruption
cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to
investigate. Bank fraud, arson and passport fraud, among other
offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption
offenses cut to the heart of our democracy. This modest increase to the
statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption
investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.
This bill goes further by amending several key statutes to broaden
their application in corruption and fraud contexts and to eliminate
legal ambiguities that can hinder prosecution of serious corruption.
The bill includes a fix to the gratuities statute that makes clear that
public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is
permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of
their official position. This important provision contains appropriate
safeguards to ensure that only corrupt conduct is prosecuted, but it
puts teeth behind the ethical reforms the Senate adopted under the
leadership of Senator Obama.
The bill also appropriately clarifies the definition of what it means
for a public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes
of the bribery statute and closes several other gaps in current law.
The bill adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the
Federal wiretap and racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional
amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally-
funded State programs, and expands the venue for perjury and
obstruction of justice prosecutions.
Finally, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for several
laws dealing with official misconduct, including theft of Government
property and bribery. These increases reflect the serious and corrosive
nature of these crimes, and would harmonize the punishment for these
crimes with other similar statutes.
If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct
that we have witnessed over the past several years in high-profile
public corruption cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation
to give investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need
to enforce our laws. Passing ethics and lobbying reform in the last
Congress was a step in the right direction. Now we should finish the
job by strengthening the criminal law to enable federal investigators
and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the public trust to
justice. I am disappointed that Republican objections prevented the
full Senate from passing this critical bill early in the last Congress.
I hope that this year all Senators will support this bipartisan bill
and take firm action to stamp out intolerable corruption.
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. 49

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Public Corruption
Prosecution Improvements Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SERIOUS
PUBLIC CORRUPTION OFFENSES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 3299A. Corruption offenses

``Unless an indictment is returned or the information is
filed against a person within 6 years after the commission of
the offense, a person may not be prosecuted, tried, or
punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy or an attempt to
violate the offense in--
``(1) section 201 or 666;
``(2) section 1341 or 1343, when charged in conjunction
with section 1346 and where the offense involves a scheme or
artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest
services of a public official;
``(3) section 1951, if the offense involves extortion under
color of official right;
``(4) section 1952, to the extent that the unlawful
activity involves bribery; or
``(5) section 1962, to the extent that the racketeering
activity involves bribery chargeable under State law,
involves a violation of section 201 or 666, section 1341 or
1343, when charged in conjunction with section 1346 and where
the offense involves a scheme or artifice to deprive another
of the intangible right of honest services of a public
official, or section 1951, if the offense involves extortion
under color of official right.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``3299A. Corruption offenses.''.

[[Page S57]]

(c) Application of Amendment.--The amendments made by this
section shall not apply to any offense committed before the
date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD STATUTES TO
LICENCES AND OTHER INTANGIBLE RIGHTS.

Sections 1341 and 1343 of title 18, United States Code, are
each amended by striking ``money or property'' and inserting
``money, property, or any other thing of value''.

SEC. 4. VENUE FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES.

(a) In General.--The second undesignated paragraph of
section 3237(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding before the period at the end the following: ``or in
any district in which an act in furtherance of the offense is
committed''.
(b) Section Heading.--The heading for section 3237 of title
18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 3237. Offense taking place in more than one
district''.

(c) Table of Sections.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 211 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended so that the item relating to section 3237 reads as
follows:

``3237. Offense taking place in more than one district.''.

SEC. 5. THEFT OR BRIBERY CONCERNING PROGRAMS RECEIVING
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

Section 666(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by--
(A) striking ``anything of value'' and inserting ``any
thing or things of value''; and
(B) striking ``of $5,000 or more'' and inserting ``of
$1,000 or more'';
(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give any thing
or things of value to any person, with intent to influence or
reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or
Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in
connection with any business, transaction, or series of
transactions of such organization, government, or agency
involving anything of value of $1,000 or more;''; and
(3) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking
``ten years'' and inserting ``15 years''.

SEC. 6. PENALTY FOR SECTION 641 VIOLATIONS.

Section 641 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``ten years'' and inserting ``15 years''.

SEC. 7. PENALTY FOR SECTION 201(B) VIOLATIONS.

Section 201(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``fifteen years'' and inserting ``20 years''.

SEC. 8. INCREASE OF MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC
CORRUPTION RELATED OFFENSES.

(a) Solicitation of Political Contributions.--Section
602(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``three years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(b) Promise of Employment for Political Activity.--Section
600 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
``one year'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(c) Deprivation of Employment for Political Activity.--
Section 601(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``one year'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(d) Intimidation To Secure Political Contributions.--
Section 606 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``three years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(e) Solicitation and Acceptance of Contributions in Federal
Offices.--Section 607(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``3 years'' and inserting ``10
years''.
(f) Coercion of Political Activity by Federal Employees.--
Section 610 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``three years'' and inserting ``10 years''.

SEC. 9. ADDITION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THEFT OF PUBLIC
MONEY OFFENSE.

Section 641 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``the District of Columbia or'' before ``the United
States'' each place that term appears.

SEC. 10. ADDITIONAL RICO PREDICATES.

(a) In General.--Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``section 641 (relating to embezzlement or
theft of public money, property, or records),'' after ``473
(relating to counterfeiting),''; and
(2) by inserting ``section 666 (relating to theft or
bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds),'' after
``section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and
welfare funds),''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title
18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``section 641 (relating to public money,
property, or records),''; and
(2) by striking ``section 666 (relating to theft or bribery
concerning programs receiving Federal funds),''.

SEC. 11. ADDITIONAL WIRETAP PREDICATES.

Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``section 641 (relating to embezzlement
or theft of public money, property, or records), section 666
(relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving
Federal funds),'' after ``section 224 (bribery in sporting
contests),''.

SEC. 12. CLARIFICATION OF CRIME OF ILLEGAL GRATUITIES.

Section 201(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking the matter before subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``otherwise than as provided by law for the proper
discharge of official duty, or by rule or regulation--'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``, or person
selected to be a public official,'' the following: ``for or
because of the official's or person's official position, or
for or because of any official act performed or to be
performed by such public official, former public official, or
person selected to be a public official''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking all after ``, anything
of value personally,'' and inserting ``for or because of the
official's or person's official position, or for or because
of any official act performed or to be performed by such
official or person;''.

SEC. 13. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF OFFICIAL ACT.

Section 201(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) the term `official act' means any action within the
range of official duty, and any decision or action on any
question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,
which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be
brought before any public official, in such public official's
official capacity or in such official's place of trust or
profit. An official act can be a single act, more than one
act, or a course of conduct.''.

SEC. 14. CLARIFICATION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT BRIBERY.

Section 201 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``anything of value''
each place it appears and inserting ``any thing or things of
value''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``anything of value''
each place it appears and inserting ``any thing or things of
value''.

SEC. 15. EXPANDING VENUE FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE PROCEEDINGS.

(a) In General.--Section 1512(i) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``A prosecution under this
section or section 1503'' and inserting ``A prosecution under
this chapter''.
(b) Perjury.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 79 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1624. Venue

``A prosecution under this chapter may be brought in the
district in which the oath, declaration, certificate,
verification, or statement under penalty of perjury is made
or in which a proceeding takes place in connection with the
oath, declaration, certificate, verification, or
statement.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 79 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``1624. Venue.''.

SEC. 16. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO
INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE PUBLIC CORRUPTION
OFFENSES.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Offices of
the Inspectors General and the Department of Justice,
including the United States Attorneys' Offices, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the Public Integrity Section of
the Criminal Division, $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, to increase the number of
personnel to investigate and prosecute public corruption
offenses including sections 201, 203 through 209, 641, 654,
666, 1001, 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1951 of title 18, United
States Code.

SEC. 17. AMENDMENT OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO
CERTAIN CRIMES.

(a) Directive to Sentencing Commission.--Pursuant to its
authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States
Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States
Sentencing Commission shall review and amend its guidelines
and its policy statements applicable to persons convicted of
an offense under sections 201, 641, and 666 of title 18,
United States Code, in order to reflect the intent of
Congress that such penalties be increased in comparison to
those currently provided by the guidelines and policy
statements.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the
Commission shall--
(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy
statements reflect Congress' intent that the guidelines and
policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses
described in subsection (a), the incidence of such offenses,
and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate
punishment to prevent such offenses;
(2) consider the extent to which the guidelines may or may
not appropriately account for--
(A) the potential and actual harm to the public and the
amount of any loss resulting from the offense;
(B) the level of sophistication and planning involved in
the offense;
(C) whether the offense was committed for purposes of
commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
(D) whether the defendant acted with intent to cause either
physical or property harm in committing the offense;
(E) the extent to which the offense represented an abuse of
trust by the offender and was committed in a manner that
undermined public confidence in the Federal, State, or local
government; and

[[Page S58]]

(F) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect
of creating a threat to public health or safety, injury to
any person or even death;
(3) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives and with other sentencing guidelines;
(4) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating
circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally
applicable sentencing ranges;
(5) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing
guidelines; and
(6) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes
of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18,
United States Code.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 50. A bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to
authorize the use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to
determine work-related emotional and mental illnesses; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social
Workers' Recognition Act to correct a continuing problem in the Federal
Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social
workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of
quality mental health care services.
Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and
treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance
plans across the nation. However, Title V of the United States Code,
does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by
clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers'
compensation claims brought by Federal employees. The bill I am
introducing corrects this problem.
It is a sad irony that Federal employees may select a clinical social
worker through their health plans to provide mental health services,
but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation
evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations
provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal
employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation
mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an
undue burden on federal employees where clinical social workers are the
only available providers of mental health care.
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. 50

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 ``Clinical Social Workers'
Recognition Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. EXAMINATIONS BY CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKERS FOR FEDERAL
WORKER COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

Section 8101 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and osteopathic
practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners,
and clinical social workers''; and
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``osteopathic
practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners,
clinical social workers,''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 51. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to recognize the
United States Military Cancer Institute as an establishment within the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, to require the
Institute to promote the health of members of the Armed Forces and
their dependents by enhancing cancer research and treatment, to provide
for a study of the epidemiological causes of cancer among various
ethnic groups for cancer prevention and early detection efforts, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I am, again, introducing the United
States Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act. This
legislation, twice passed by the Senate yet unsuccessful in the House,
would formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute,
USMCI, and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts
in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI
already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will
formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the
maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and
treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among
various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be
in a better position to unite military research efforts with other
cancer research centers.
Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant
issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to
coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a
comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million
people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central
Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14
years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military
personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is
predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.
The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, D.C., area, and its
components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the
Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology,
and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more
than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense
civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.
The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, intends to expand
research activities to military medical centers across the nation.
Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and
environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population,
including Asian, Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic
subpopulations.
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. 51

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

SECTION 1. THE UNITED STATES MILITARY CANCER INSTITUTE.

(a) Establishment.--Chapter 104 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``Sec. 2118. United States Military Cancer Institute

``(a) Establishment.--(1) There is a United States Military
Cancer Institute in the University. The Director of the
United States Military Cancer Institute is the head of the
Institute.
``(2) The Institute is composed of clinical and basic
scientists in the Department of Defense who have an expertise
in research, patient care, and education relating to oncology
and who meet applicable criteria for participation in the
Institute.
``(3) The components of the Institute include military
treatment and research facilities that meet applicable
criteria and are designated as affiliates of the Institute.
``(b) Research.--(1) The Director of the United States
Military Cancer Institute shall carry out research studies on
the following:
``(A) The epidemiological features of cancer, including
assessments of the carcinogenic effect of genetic and
environmental factors, and of disparities in health, inherent
or common among populations of various ethnic origins.
``(B) The prevention and early detection of cancer.
``(C) Basic, translational, and clinical investigation
matters relating to the matters described in subparagraphs
(A) and (B).
``(2) The research studies under paragraph (1) shall
include complementary research on oncologic nursing.
``(c) Collaborative Research.--The Director of the United
States Military Cancer Institute shall carry out the research
studies under subsection (b) in collaboration with other
cancer research organizations and entities selected by the
Institute for purposes of the research studies.
``(d) Annual Report.--(1) Promptly after the end of each
fiscal year, the Director of the United States Military
Cancer Institute shall submit to the President of the
University a report on the results of the research studies
carried out under subsection (b).
``(2) Not later than 60 days after receiving the annual
report under paragraph (1), the President of the University
shall transmit such report to the Secretary of Defense and to
Congress.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 104 of such title is amended by adding
at the end the following new item:

``2118. United States Military Cancer Institute.''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 52. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide 100 percent reimbursement for medical assistance provided to a
Native Hawaiian through a Federally qualified health

[[Page S59]]

center or a Native Hawaiian health care system; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Native
Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act. This legislation would authorize a
Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent, FMAP, of 100 percent for the
payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health
care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian
Health Care System.
This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which
provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent of 100 percent for
payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health
Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.
Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured
and medically underserved Native Hawaiians and other United States
citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health
services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the
entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health
maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community
health centers, with their multidisciplinary approach, offer cost
effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic
disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable
populations.
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. 52

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 ``Native Hawaiian Medicaid
Coverage Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. 100 PERCENT FMAP FOR MEDICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED TO A
NATIVE HAWAIIAN THROUGH A FEDERALLY-QUALIFIED
HEALTH CENTER OR A NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM UNDER THE MEDICAID PROGRAM.

(a) Medicaid.--The third sentence of section 1905(b) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by
inserting ``, and with respect to medical assistance provided
to a Native Hawaiian (as defined in section 12 of the Native
Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act) through a Federally-
qualified health center or a Native Hawaiian health care
system (as so defined) whether directly, by referral, or
under contract or other arrangement between a Federally-
qualified health center or a Native Hawaiian health care
system and another health care provider'' before the period.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
applies to medical assistance provided on or after the date
of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 53. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
provide for coverage of services provided by nursing school clinics
under State Medicaid programs; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am, again, introducing the Nursing
School Clinics Act. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to
provide access to quality health care for all Americans by offering
grants and incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care
clinics in underserved areas where additional medical services are most
needed. In addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing
schools to enhance the scope of student training and education by
providing firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.
Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university
of nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration
with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve.
These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse
practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient
care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing
faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic
institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To
date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have
yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room
visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as
compared to conventional primary health care.
The bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery
in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To
accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would
be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing
school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of
grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the
financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.
In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective
and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range
of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach
the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring
that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an
integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act
recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the
medically underserved.
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. 53

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 ``Nursing School Clinics Act
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. MEDICAID COVERAGE OF SERVICES PROVIDED BY NURSING
SCHOOL CLINICS.

(a) In General.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (27), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) by redesignating paragraph (28) as paragraph (29); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (27), the following new
paragraph:
``(28) nursing school clinic services (as defined in
subsection (y)) furnished by or under the supervision of a
nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist (as defined
in section 1861(aa)(5)), whether or not the nurse
practitioner or clinical nurse specialist is under the
supervision of, or associated with, a physician or other
health care provider; and''.
(b) Nursing School Clinic Services Defined.--Section 1905
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(y) The term `nursing school clinic services' means
services provided by a health care facility operated by an
accredited school of nursing which provides primary care,
long-term care, mental health counseling, home health
counseling, home health care, or other health care services
which are within the scope of practice of a registered
nurse.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(a)(10)(C)(iv) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(C)(iv)) is
amended by inserting ``and (28)'' after ``(24)''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall be effective with respect to payments made under a
State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) for calendar quarters commencing with
the first calendar quarter beginning after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 54. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for patient protection by establishing minimum nurse staffing
ratios at certain Medicare providers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am, again, reintroducing the
Registered Nurse Safe Staffing Act. For over four decades I have been a
committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care.
While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the
complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing
patters be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the
professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research
demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff
directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies
show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower
mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer
complications.
A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association
found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every
additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst
of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals
often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing.

[[Page S60]]

While nursing research indicates that adequate registered nurse
staffing is vital to the health and safety of patients, there is no
standardized public reporting mechanism, nor enforcement of adequate
staffing plans. The only regulations addressing nursing staff exists
vaguely in Medicare Conditions of Participation which states: ``The
nursing service must have an adequate number of licensed registered
nurses, licensed practice, vocational, nurses, and other personnel to
provide nursing care to all patients as needed''.
This bill will require Medicare Participating Hospitals to develop
and maintain reliable and valid systems to determine sufficient
registered nurse staffing. Given the demands that the healthcare
industry faces today, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients
have access to adequate nursing care. However, we must ensure that the
decisions by which care is provided are made by the clinical experts,
the registered nurses caring for these patients. Support of this bill
supports our Nation's nurses during a critical shortage, but more
importantly, works to ensure the safety of their patients.
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. 54

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 ``Registered Nurse Safe
Staffing Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) There are hospitals throughout the United States that
have inadequate staffing of registered nurses to protect the
well-being and health of the patients.
(2) Studies show that the health of patients in hospitals
is directly proportionate to the number of registered nurses
working in the hospital.
(3) There is a critical shortage of registered nurses in
the United States.
(4) The effect of that shortage is revealed in unsafe
staffing levels in hospitals.
(5) Patient safety is adversely affected by these unsafe
staffing levels, creating a public health crisis.
(6) Registered nurses are being required to perform
professional services under conditions that do not support
quality health care or a healthful work environment for
registered nurses.
(7) As a payer for inpatient and outpatient hospital
services for individuals entitled to benefits under the
Medicare program established under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act, the Federal Government has a compelling
interest in promoting the safety of such individuals by
requiring any hospital participating in such program to
establish minimum safe staffing levels for registered nurses.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM STAFFING RATIOS BY MEDICARE
PARTICIPATING HOSPITALS.

(a) Requirement of Medicare Provider Agreement.--Section
1866(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395cc(a)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (U), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (V), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``, and''; and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (V) the following new
subparagraph:
``(W) in the case of a hospital, to meet the requirements
of section 1899.''.
(b) Requirements.--Title XVIII of the Social Security Act
is amended by inserting after section 1889 the following new
section:

``staffing requirements for medicare participating hospitals

``Sec. 1899. (a) Establishment of Staffing System.--
``(1) In general.--Each participating hospital shall adopt
and implement a staffing system that ensures a number of
registered nurses on each shift and in each unit of the
hospital to ensure appropriate staffing levels for patient
care.
``(2) Staffing system requirements.--Subject to paragraph
(3), a staffing system adopted and implemented under this
section shall--
``(A) be based upon input from the direct care-giving
registered nurse staff or their exclusive representatives, as
well as the chief nurse executive;
``(B) be based upon the number of patients and the level
and variability of intensity of care to be provided, with
appropriate consideration given to admissions, discharges,
and transfers during each shift;
``(C) account for contextual issues affecting staffing and
the delivery of care, including architecture and geography of
the environment and available technology;
``(D) reflect the level of preparation and experience of
those providing care;
``(E) account for staffing level effectiveness or
deficiencies in related health care classifications,
including but not limited to, certified nurse assistants,
licensed vocational nurses, licensed psychiatric technicians,
nursing assistants, aides, and orderlies;
``(F) reflect staffing levels recommended by specialty
nursing organizations;
``(G) establish upwardly adjustable registered nurse-to-
patient ratios based upon registered nurses' assessment of
patient acuity and existing conditions;
``(H) provide that a registered nurse shall not be assigned
to work in a particular unit without first having established
the ability to provide professional care in such unit; and
``(I) be based on methods that assure validity and
reliability.
``(3) Limitation.--A staffing system adopted and
implemented under paragraph (1) may not--
``(A) set registered-nurse levels below those required by
any Federal or State law or regulation; or
``(B) utilize any minimum registered nurse-to-patient ratio
established pursuant to paragraph (2)(G) as an upper limit on
the staffing of the hospital to which such ratio applies.
``(b) Reporting, and Release to Public, of Certain Staffing
Information.--
``(1) Requirements for hospitals.--Each participating
hospital shall--
``(A) post daily for each shift, in a clearly visible
place, a document that specifies in a uniform manner (as
prescribed by the Secretary) the current number of licensed
and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for patient
care in each unit of the hospital, identifying specifically
the number of registered nurses;
``(B) upon request, make available to the public--
``(i) the nursing staff information described in
subparagraph (A); and
``(ii) a detailed written description of the staffing
system established by the hospital pursuant to subsection
(a); and
``(C) submit to the Secretary in a uniform manner (as
prescribed by the Secretary) the nursing staff information
described in subparagraph (A) through electronic data
submission not less frequently than quarterly.
``(2) Secretarial responsibilities.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) make the information submitted pursuant to paragraph
(1)(C) publicly available, including by publication of such
information on the Internet website of the Department of
Health and Human Services; and
``(B) provide for the auditing of such information for
accuracy as a part of the process of determining whether an
institution is a hospital for purposes of this title.
``(c) Recordkeeping; Data Collection; Evaluation.--
``(1) Recordkeeping.--Each participating hospital shall
maintain for a period of at least 3 years (or, if longer,
until the conclusion of pending enforcement activities) such
records as the Secretary deems necessary to determine whether
the hospital has adopted and implemented a staffing system
pursuant to subsection (a).
``(2) Data collection on certain outcomes.--The Secretary
shall require the collection, maintenance, and submission of
data by each participating hospital sufficient to establish
the link between the staffing system established pursuant to
subsection (a) and--
``(A) patient acuity from maintenance of acuity data
through entries on patients' charts;
``(B) patient outcomes that are nursing sensitive, such as
patient falls, adverse drug events, injuries to patients,
skin breakdown, pneumonia, infection rates, upper
gastrointestinal bleeding, shock, cardiac arrest, length of
stay, and patient readmissions;
``(C) operational outcomes, such as work-related injury or
illness, vacancy and turnover rates, nursing care hours per
patient day, on-call use, overtime rates, and needle-stick
injuries; and
``(D) patient complaints related to staffing levels.
``(3) Evaluation.--Each participating hospital shall
annually evaluate its staffing system and establish minimum
registered nurse staffing ratios to assure ongoing
reliability and validity of the system and ratios. The
evaluation shall be conducted by a joint management-staff
committee comprised of at least 50 percent of registered
nurses who provide direct patient care.
``(d) Enforcement.--
``(1) Responsibility.--The Secretary shall enforce the
requirements and prohibitions of this section in accordance
with the succeeding provisions of this subsection.
``(2) Procedures for receiving and investigating
complaints.--The Secretary shall establish procedures under
which--
``(A) any person may file a complaint that a participating
hospital has violated a requirement or a prohibition of this
section; and
``(B) such complaints are investigated by the Secretary.
``(3) Remedies.--If the Secretary determines that a
participating hospital has violated a requirement of this
section, the Secretary--
``(A) shall require the facility to establish a corrective
action plan to prevent the recurrence of such violation; and
``(B) may impose civil money penalties under paragraph (4).
``(4) Civil money penalties.--
``(A) In general.--In addition to any other penalties
prescribed by law, the Secretary may impose a civil money
penalty of not more than $10,000 for each knowing violation
of a requirement of this section, except that the Secretary
shall impose a civil money

[[Page S61]]

penalty of more than $10,000 for each such violation in the
case of a participating hospital that the Secretary
determines has a pattern or practice of such violations (with
the amount of such additional penalties being determined in
accordance with a schedule or methodology specified in
regulations).
``(B) Procedures.--The provisions of section 1128A (other
than subsections (a) and (b)) shall apply to a civil money
penalty under this paragraph in the same manner as such
provisions apply to a penalty or proceeding under section
1128A.
``(C) Public notice of violations.--
``(i) Internet website.--The Secretary shall publish on the
Internet website of the Department of Health and Human
Services the names of participating hospitals on which civil
money penalties have been imposed under this section, the
violation for which the penalty was imposed, and such
additional information as the Secretary determines
appropriate.
``(ii) Change of ownership.--With respect to a
participating hospital that had a change in ownership, as
determined by the Secretary, penalties imposed on the
hospital while under previous ownership shall no longer be
published by the Secretary of such Internet website after the
1-year period beginning on the date of change in ownership.
``(e) Whistleblower Protections.--
``(1) Prohibition of discrimination and retaliation.--A
participating hospital shall not discriminate or retaliate in
any manner against any patient or employee of the hospital
because that patient or employee, or any other person, has
presented a grievance or complaint, or has initiated or
cooperated in any investigation or proceeding of any kind,
relating to the staffing system or other requirements and
prohibitions of this section.
``(2) Relief for prevailing employees.--An employee of a
participating hospital who has been discriminated or
retaliated against in employment in violation of this
subsection may initiate judicial action in a United States
district court and shall be entitled to reinstatement,
reimbursement for lost wages, and work benefits caused by the
unlawful acts of the employing hospital. Prevailing employees
are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs
associated with pursuing the case.
``(3) Relief for prevailing patients.--A patient who has
been discriminated or retaliated against in violation of this
subsection may initiate judicial action in a United States
district court. A prevailing patient shall be entitled to
liquidated damages of $5,000 for a violation of this statute
in addition to any other damages under other applicable
statutes, regulations, or common law. Prevailing patients are
entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated
with pursuing the case.
``(4) Limitation on actions.--No action may be brought
under paragraph (2) or (3) more than 2 years after the
discrimination or retaliation with respect to which the
action is brought.
``(5) Treatment of adverse employment actions.--For
purposes of this subsection--
``(A) an adverse employment action shall be treated as
retaliation or discrimination; and
``(B) the term `adverse employment action' includes--
``(i) the failure to promote an individual or provide any
other employment-related benefit for which the individual
would otherwise be eligible;
``(ii) an adverse evaluation or decision made in relation
to accreditation, certification, credentialing, or licensing
of the individual; and
``(iii) a personnel action that is adverse to the
individual concerned.
``(f) Relationship to State Laws.--Nothing in this section
shall be construed as exempting or relieving any person from
any liability, duty, penalty, or punishment provided by any
present or future law of any State or political subdivision
of a State, other than any such law which purports to require
or permit the doing of any act which would be an unlawful
practice under this title.
``(g) Relationship To Conduct Prohibited Under the National
Labor Relations Act or Other Collective Bargaining Laws.--
Nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting
conduct prohibited under the National Labor Relations Act or
under any other Federal, State, or local collective
bargaining law.
``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such
regulations as are appropriate and necessary to implement
this section.
``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Participating hospital.--The term `participating
hospital' means a hospital that has entered into a provider
agreement under section 1866.
``(2) Registered nurse.--The term `registered nurse' means
an individual who has been granted a license to practice as a
registered nurse in at least 1 State.
``(3) Unit.--The term `unit' of a hospital is an
organizational department or separate geographic area of a
hospital, such as a burn unit, a labor and delivery room, a
post-anesthesia service area, an emergency department, an
operating room, a pediatric unit, a stepdown or intermediate
care unit, a specialty care unit, a telemetry unit, a general
medical care unit, a subacute care unit, and a transitional
inpatient care unit.
``(4) Shift.--The term `shift' means a scheduled set of
hours or duty period to be worked at a participating
hospital.
``(5) Person.--The term `person' means 1 or more
individuals, associations, corporations, unincorporated
organizations, or labor unions.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2010.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 55. A bill to amend the XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide improved reimbursement for clinical social worker services
under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am, again, introducing legislation
to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct
discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered
through Medicare, Part B. These three proposed changes contained in
this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical
social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the
profession that is similar to other health care professionals
reimbursed through the Medicare program.
First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker
services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary.
Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a
clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these
services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare.
Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for
services provided to a client who is hospitalized.
Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care
provider network. They are legally regulated in every state of the
nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health
care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the
disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.
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. 55

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Equity for Clinical Social
Workers Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVED REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER
SERVICES UNDER MEDICARE.

(a) In General.--Section 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended to
read as follows: ``(ii) the amount determined by a fee
schedule established by the Secretary,''.
(b) Definition of Clinical Social Worker Services
Expanded.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ``services
performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in
paragraph (1))'' and inserting ``such services and such
services and supplies furnished as an incident to such
services performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in
paragraph (1))''.
(c) Clinical Social Worker Services Not To Be Included in
Inpatient Hospital Services.--Section 1861(b)(4) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(b)(4)) is amended by
striking ``and services'' and inserting ``clinical social
worker services, and services''.
(d) Treatment of Services Furnished in Inpatient Setting.--
Section 1832(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and services'' and inserting ``clinical
social worker services, and services''; and
(2) by adding ``and'' at the end.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to payments made for clinical social worker
services furnished on or after January 1, 2010.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 56. A bill to amend the XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove
the restriction that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker
provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility
to a patient only under the care of a physician; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I again introduce legislation to
authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and
clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient
rehabilitation facility program.
In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical
supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals
and does not

[[Page S62]]

allow them to function to the full extent of their State practice
licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient rehabilitation
facilities should have access to a wide range of social and behavioral
science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical social workers
are recognized as independent providers of mental health care services
under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the TRICARE
Military Health Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare (Part
B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This legislation will
ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the same recognition
under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility
program.
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. 56

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 ``Autonomy for Psychologists
and Social Workers Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION THAT A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
OR CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER PROVIDE SERVICES IN A
COMPREHENSIVE OUTPATIENT REHABILITATION
FACILITY TO A PATIENT ONLY UNDER THE CARE OF A
PHYSICIAN.

(a) In General.--Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended by
striking ``physician'' and inserting ``physician, except that
a patient receiving qualified psychologist services (as
defined in subsection (ii)) may be under the care of a
clinical psychologist with respect to such services to the
extent permitted under State law and except that a patient
receiving clinical social worker services (as defined in
subsection (hh)(2)) may be under the care of a clinical
social worker with respect to such services to the extent
permitted under State law''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to services provided on or after January 1, 2010.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 57. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to
establish a psychology post-doctoral fellowship program, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing legislation to
amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a
psychology post-doctoral program. Psychologists have made a unique
contribution in reaching out to the Nation's medically underserved
populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing
grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent
and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of
a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find
solutions to these issues.
Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in
traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining
participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health
professionals who have participated in these specialized federally
funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment
obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with
the underserved.
While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and
mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral
fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment
skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For
example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child
recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a
cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic
learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to
initiate effective treatment.
Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is
not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against
women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child
and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates
of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral
fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be
of special benefit in addressing these problems.
Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized
training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation
in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the Nation's
underserved.
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. 57

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 ``Psychologists in the Service
of the Public Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

Part C of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 293k et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 749. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a
psychology post-doctoral fellowship program to make grants to
and enter into contracts with eligible entities to encourage
the provision of psychological training and services in
underserved treatment areas.
``(b) Eligible Entities.--
``(1) Individuals.--In order to receive a grant under this
section an individual shall submit an application to the
Secretary at such time, in such form, and containing such
information as the Secretary shall require, including a
certification that such individual--
``(A) has received a doctoral degree through a graduate
program in psychology provided by an accredited institution
at the time such grant is awarded;
``(B) will provide services to a medically underserved
population during the period of such grant;
``(C) will comply with the provisions of subsection (c);
and
``(D) will provide any other information or assurances as
the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(2) Institutions.--In order to receive a grant or
contract under this section, an institution shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and
containing such information as the Secretary shall require,
including a certification that such institution--
``(A) is an entity, approved by the State, that provides
psychological services in medically underserved areas or to
medically underserved populations (including entities that
care for the mentally retarded, mental health institutions,
and prisons);
``(B) will use amounts provided to such institution under
this section to provide financial assistance in the form of
fellowships to qualified individuals who meet the
requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph
(1);
``(C) will not use more than 10 percent of amounts provided
under this section to pay for the administrative costs of any
fellowship programs established with such funds; and
``(D) will provide any other information or assurances as
the Secretary determines appropriate.
``(c) Continued Provision of Services.--Any individual who
receives a grant or fellowship under this section shall
certify to the Secretary that such individual will continue
to provide the type of services for which such grant or
fellowship is awarded for not less than 1 year after the term
of the grant or fellowship has expired.
``(d) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate
regulations necessary to carry out this section, including
regulations that define the terms `medically underserved
areas' and `medically underserved populations'.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2012.''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 58. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the application of the tonnage tax on vessels operating in the dual
United States domestic and foreign trades, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. Presdient, foreign registered ships now carry 97
percent of the imports and exports moving in United States
international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards
than United States registered ships, and are virtually untaxed. Their
costs of operation are, therefore, lower than United States ship
operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.
Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for United
States-flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress
enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act

[[Page S63]]

of 2004, Public Law 108-357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is
based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather than taxing international
income at a 35 percent corporate income tax rate. However, during the
House and Senate conference, language was included, which states that a
United States vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income
if that vessel also operates in United States domestic commerce for
more than 30 days per year.
This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the
tonnage tax for those United States ships that operate in both domestic
and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their
competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that
ships operating in United States domestic trade already have
significant cost disadvantages. Specifically, (1) they are built in
higher priced United States shipyards; (2) do not receive Maritime
Security Payments, even when operated in international trade; and (3)
are owned by United States-based American corporations. The inability
of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their
international service is a further, unnecessary burden on their
competitive position in foreign commerce.
When windows of opportunity present themselves in international
trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the
participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit
makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps
American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the
tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation
of American built ships in international commerce, and further
exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its
international cargo.
These concerns were of sufficient importance that in December 2006
Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but only for
approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships
primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry
cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade
(Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006.)
The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great
Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate
temporarily in international trade, totals 13 United States flag
vessels. These 13 ships normally operate in domestic trades that
involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida,
Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing equity to the
United States corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my
bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations
and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their
international income--so they receive the same treatment as other
United States flag international operators. I stress that, under my
bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent United
States corporate tax rate on their domestic income.
Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a
necessary step toward providing tax equity between United States flag
and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax committees of the
Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and
approval.
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. 58

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

SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE TONNAGE TAX
ON VESSELS OPERATING IN THE DUAL UNITED STATES
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN TRADES.

(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 1355 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions and
special rules) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Effect of Operating a Qualifying Vessel in the Dual
United States Domestic and Foreign Trades.--For purposes of
this subchapter--
``(1) an electing corporation shall be treated as
continuing to use a qualifying vessel in the United States
foreign trade during any period of use in the United States
domestic trade, and
``(2) gross income from such United States domestic trade
shall not be excluded under section 1357(a), but shall not be
taken into account for purposes of section 1353(b)(1)(B) or
for purposes of section 1356 in connection with the
application of section 1357 or 1358.''.
(b) Regulatory Authority for Allocation of Credits, Income,
and Deductions.--Section 1358 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to allocation of credits, income, and
deductions) is amended--
(1) by striking ``in accordance with this subsection'' in
subsection (c) and inserting ``to the extent provided in such
regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations consistent with the provisions of this subchapter
for the purpose of allocating gross income, deductions, and
credits between or among qualifying shipping activities and
other activities of a taxpayer.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1355(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by striking ``exclusively''.
(2) Section 1355(b)(1)(B) of such Code is amended by
striking ``as a qualifying vessel'' and inserting ``in the
transportation of goods or passengers''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 59. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to
make certain graduate programs in professional psychology eligible to
participate in various health professions loan programs; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise again today to reintroduce
legislation to modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act
in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs
with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan
programs.
Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with
eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan
guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of
behavioral science expertise into our community of public health
providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution
being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most
distressing problems.
The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical
disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title
VII programs plays a significant role in providing financial support
for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an
advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations
because often they can communicate with clients in their own language
and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in
community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged
individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued
support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health
care services to underserved communities.
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. 59

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 ``Strengthen the Public Health
Service Act''.

SEC. 2. PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HEALTH PROFESSIONS LOAN
PROGRAMS.

(a) Loan Agreements.--Section 721 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292q) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``, or any public or
nonprofit school that offers a graduate program in
professional psychology'' after ``veterinary medicine'';
(2) in subsection (b)(4), by inserting ``, or to a graduate
degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of
veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree''; and
(3) in subsection (c)(1), by inserting ``, or schools that
offer graduate programs in professional psychology'' after
``veterinary medicine''.
(b) Loan Provisions.--Section 722 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292r) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``, or to a graduate
degree in professional psychology'' after ``or doctor of
veterinary medicine or an equivalent degree'';

[[Page S64]]

(2) in subsection (c), in the matter preceding paragraph
(1), by inserting ``, or at a school that offers a graduate
program in professional psychology'' after ``veterinary
medicine''; and
(3) in subsection (k)--
(A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or
podiatry'' and inserting ``podiatry, or professional
psychology''; and
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``or podiatric medicine''
and inserting ``podiatric medicine, or professional
psychology''.

SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

(a) Health Professions Data.--Section 792(a) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295k(a)) is amended by striking
``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
(b) Prohibition Against Discrimination on Basis of Sex.--
Section 794 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m)
is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking
``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
(c) Definitions.--Section 799B(1)(B) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p(1)(B)) is amended by striking
``clinical'' each place the term appears and inserting
``professional''.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs.
Boxer):
S. 60. A bill to prohibit the sale and counterfeiting of Presidential
inaugural tickets; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer,
Snowe, and Boxer in introducing legislation to prohibit the selling and
counterfeiting of tickets to the Presidential inaugural ceremony.
The inauguration of the President of the United States is one of the
most important rituals of our democracy, and the chance to witness this
solemn event should not be bought and sold similar to tickets to a
sporting event.
This is a dignified and critical moment of transition in Government,
a moment of which Americans have always been justifiably proud. It is,
in fact, the major symbol of the real strength of our democracy--the
peaceful transition from one elected President to the next.
Tickets to the official Presidential inaugural ceremony are supposed
to be free for the people: for the volunteers who gave up their
weekends, walking miles door to door to encourage voters to turn out at
the polls on election day, for members of the African-American
community to see one of their own take the oath of office for the
highest office in the land, for schoolchildren to witness history, and
for the American public to watch this affirmation of our Constitution,
this peaceful transition from one administration to another.
This is going to be the major civic event of our time. Excitement is
at an all time high, and every one of us has received more phone calls
for tickets than we could possibly ever meet. People are desperate to
become part of it, to touch it, to be around, to feel it, to listen to
it, and they are coming from all over the country. We could have more
than 1.5 million people descend on the Nation's Capital for this
inauguration.
Before I introduced a similar bill at the end of the last Congress,
tickets to the Presidential inaugural were being offered for sale on
the Internet for $5,000 apiece, with some going as high as $40,000
each. To their credit, some Internet websites voluntarily agreed to
refuse to sell these tickets online. I want to thank and commend
Craigslist, eBay, and StubHub for leading the way on this issue.
However, it is clear that relying on voluntary industry compliance to
prevent the sale of these tickets is simply not enough. Today, some
Internet sites are still offering these tickets for sale at prices up
to $750 per ticket.
Let me be clear--these are free tickets that have not yet been
distributed by congressional and Presidential transition offices. These
unscrupulous websites who continue to offer these tickets for sale do
not have any tickets to offer for sale.
These tickets are supposed to be free for the people. Once more,
these tickets are not yet even available. They will not be distributed
to congressional offices until the end of the week before the
inauguration. Even then the offices will require in-person pickup, with
secure identification. But they will be free and they should stay that
way.
We are asking people to pick up their tickets the day before the
inauguration in my office. Everyone will submit their name, their
address, and their driver's license. They will have to verify they are
the actual person who has tickets waiting for them. I believe this kind
of procedure deters unscrupulous people from selling these tickets on
the Internet. No websites or other ticket outlets have inaugural
swearing-in tickets to sell, despite what some of them claim.
Congress has the responsibility of overseeing this historic event.
This bill will ensure that these tickets are not sold to the highest
bidder, and that the inauguration has all the respect and dignity it
deserves.
This legislation is aimed at stopping those who seek to profit by
selling these tickets. It would also target those who seek to dupe the
public with fraudulent or counterfeit tickets or those who merely
promise but can't deliver on tickets that they do not actually have.
Those who violate the law under this legislation would face a class A
misdemeanor with a substantial fine, imprisonment of up to 1 year, or
both.
The bill also exempts official Presidential Inaugural Committees, and
there is good reason for this. Presidential Inaugural Committees are
used to organize and fund the public inaugural ceremonies. Donations
made in return for inaugural tickets have long been used by both
political parts to fund the Presidential inaugural festivities.
Unlike unscrupulous websites and ticket scalpers, there is no
``profit'' made by Presidential Inaugural Committees in giving these
tickets to people in return for inaugural donations. This exemption
will allow both parties to raise the needed funds to put on
Presidential inaugurals in the future.
It is my hope that Congress will pass this legislation quickly,
before President-elect Obama's inauguration on January 20th. I think it
is very important to establish once and for all that tickets to the
inauguration of the next President of the United States are not issues
of commerce, but rather free tickets to be given to the people.
So I hope that this week this legislation can pass unanimously on a
hotline by this body.
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. 60

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SALE AND COUNTERFEITING OF
INAUGURAL TICKETS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 25 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following

``Sec. 515. Prohibition on sale and counterfeiting of
inaugural tickets

``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person to--
``(1) except as provided in subsection (b), knowingly and
willfully sell for money or property, or facilitate the sale
for money or property of, a ticket to a Presidential
inaugural ceremony;
``(2) with the intent to defraud, falsely make, forge,
counterfeit, or falsely alter a ticket to a Presidential
inaugural ceremony; or
``(3) with the intent to defraud, use, unlawfully possess,
or exhibit a ticket to a Presidential inaugural ceremony,
knowing the ticket to be falsely made, forged, counterfeited,
or falsely altered.
``(b) Exception.--This section shall not apply to the sale
for money or property, facilitation of such a sale, or
attempt of such a sale, of a ticket to a Presidential
inaugural ceremony--
``(1) that occurs after the date on which the Presidential
inaugural ceremony for which the ticket was issued occurs; or
``(2) by an official presidential inaugural committee
established on behalf of a President elect of the United
States.
``(c) Penalty.--Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be
fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or
both.
``(d) Definition.--In this section, the term `Presidential
inaugural ceremony' means a public inaugural ceremony at
which the President elect or the Vice President elect take
the oath or affirmation of office for the office of President
of the United States or the office of Vice President of the
United States, respectively.''.
(b) Amendment to Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis
for chapter 25 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting at the end the following:

``515. Prohibition on sale and counterfeiting of inaugural tickets.''.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Whitehouse):

[[Page S65]]

S. 61. A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code with
respect to modification of certain mortgages on principal residences,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as the 111th Congress begins, the most
important item on our agenda is to help end the worst economic crisis
America has faced since the Great Depression.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to develop
and approve an economic turnaround package as quickly as possible.
But even if Congress authorizes as much as $1 trillion in new
Government spending over the next 2 years to stimulate the economy, if
we don't address the origins of this crisis, I fear the impact of any
recovery package will be dampened.
This economic crisis began with the bubble that burst in the housing
market. So we have to address that, first and foremost. Families need
to be able to stay in their homes, and communities need to be
stabilized before the economy can start to grow again.
That's why, as my first bill in the new Congress, I am reintroducing
the Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act.
When I first began working on this bill almost two years ago, the
Center for Responsible Lending, Credit Suisse, and others estimated
that 2 million homes were at risk of foreclosure.
The Mortgage Bankers Association and the rest of the mortgage
industry scoffed at such a number.
Last month, Credit Suisse estimated that 8.1 million homes are likely
to be lost to foreclosure by 2012. If the economy continues to worsen,
they believe foreclosures will exceed 10 million homes.
If over 8 million families--representing 16 percent of all
mortgages--are losing their homes, our economy is not going to recover.
I first introduced this bill in September of 2007. I have chaired
three hearings on the subject and tried three times to pass this
legislation last year.
A large coalition supports this bill--including the AARP, the
Consumer Federation of America, the Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights, the AFL-CIO, the Center for Responsible Lending, the National
Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, and many others. But the
Mortgage Bankers Association and the rest of the mortgage industry have
successfully opposed it so far.
Three things have fundamentally changed, and I am back, pressing even
harder that we make this bill law.
First, the banks that brought us the reckless lending, dense
securitization, and risky investing practices that created the boom and
bust in the housing market have now happily accepted a $700 billion
handout from the American taxpayers . . . even as most of them refuse
to help the homeowners who are suffering most acutely from their
irresponsible business practices. Frankly, I think that the credibility
of the opposition to my bill has slipped just a bit.
Second, it is painfully clear that foreclosure mitigation efforts to
date have failed. Professor Alan White of the Valparaiso School of Law
analyzed a large sample of the mortgage modifications made voluntarily
by the industry-led Hope Now Alliance. He found that almost half of
these so-called foreclosure prevention plans actually increased the
monthly payments of homeowners. How does that help families save their
homes?
Third, America soon will have a President who understands the
enormity of this problem and supports this change to the bankruptcy
code.
So what does this bill do? This bill would allow mortgages on primary
residences to be modified in bankruptcy just like other debts--
including vacation homes, family farms, and yachts.
Only families living in the home would qualify--no speculators are
allowed.
The bill would allow judges to cut through all of the constraints
that have doomed foreclosure prevention plans from being successful for
even the most proactive and well-intentioned mortgage servicers.
There are very real constraints on some of the current efforts to
prevent foreclosure today because most mortgages are sliced and sold to
different investors, servicers sometimes have a hard time locating all
of the owners of the mortgages to get their consent for modifications.
Servicers that modify mortgages without the consent of all the
investors fear that they could be sued.
Some investors refuse to approve sensible restructurings, because
there is little incentive for the owner of a second mortgage to approve
a modification of a first mortgage that will see the second mortgage
wiped out.
Mortgage modifications that ignore the other pile of debt a household
is facing is a set-up for failure. That's a leading reason why we see
so many redefaults on newly modified mortgages through the current
programs.
Finally, servicers who are on the front lines answering the phone
calls from homeowners and processing the paperwork often are
compensated more for foreclosures than modifications.
My proposal would allow judges to cut through these complicating
factors to rework the underlying loans.
The mortgages that are modified in bankruptcy will provide far more
value to the lenders and the investors than foreclosure.
The bill would provide borrowers who are frustrated with their
mortgage servicers some desperately needed leverage to get their
banker's full attention. It provides an incentive for banks to modify
loans before the judges in bankruptcy do it for them.
Best of all, this program would cost the taxpayers nothing. Given the
staggering amounts that taxpayers have been asked to give to the
mortgage industry lately, the taxpayers are ready for a plan that
doesn't cost them anything and that will actually work.
Since the Mortgage Bankers Association still opposes this plan, after
taking all of that taxpayer money and after failing to do anything
meaningful on their own to address this crisis, I want to address their
primary remaining objection to this plan as clearly as possible so that
everyone listening fully understands why the industry is wrong, once
and for all.
A few weeks ago, the Chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association
testified in the Senate Judiciary Committee that my bill would create a
tax of $295, per month, for every homeowner in America, forever. I
asked in the hearing, and my staff asked three times after the hearing,
for some shred of evidence to support such a ridiculous claim. The
response finally came just before the holidays, and it is laughable.
The Mortgage Bankers Association claims that changing the bankruptcy
code will create new costs for lenders that must then be passed on to
all borrowers. They have concocted a list of individual costs that add
up to the full ``tax,'' as they call it. But they don't provide a
single shred of evidence to support any of these cost estimates. Not
one. They just made them all up.
On the other hand, a study conducted by Adam Levitin of the
Georgetown Law School uses actual statistical data to show that there
is virtually no impact on mortgage interest rates just because
mortgages can be modified by judges in bankruptcy.
The main problem with the argument that my bill will increase future
mortgage rates is this:
The choice for mortgage lenders and investors is not full payment of
the original mortgage versus a lower payment from a judicially modified
mortgage.
The choice is between a lower payment from a judicially modified
mortgage and mortgage failure.
Valparaiso's Professor White reports that in his large study sample,
mortgage servicers and their investors lost an average of 55 percent of
the value of the mortgages that failed through foreclosure, or about
$145,000 per loan.
If those loans would have been modified in bankruptcy, the servicers
and investors would have been given ownership of a sustainable mortgage
worth at least the fair market value of the home plus an interest rate
that included a premium for risk. These modified mortgages would on
average have created far better results than the foreclosures that
actually occurred.
Therefore, when the Mortgage Bankers Association claims with no
evidence whatsoever that my bill would raise mortgage interest rates,
we should all ask them this: Why would mortgage bankers charge future
borrowers higher interest rates tomorrow because of a change in the law
that

[[Page S66]]

helps the bankers reduce their losses today?
I urge the Senate to move swiftly to enact the economic recovery
package that America desperately needs. And as part of that effort I
urge my colleagues to support the remedy to the foreclosure crisis that
will provide the most help to the 8.1 million families across the
country who are at risk of losing their homes.
If we don't address the core of the crisis, I fear that the stimulus
may not work as well as it should. I look forward to working with
Chairman Dodd, Senator Schumer, all of the other Senators who have
supported this provision, and President-elect Obama to see that it is
signed into law quickly.
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. 61

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 ``Helping Families Save Their
Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR RELIEF.

Section 109 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by adding at the end of subsection (e) the following:
``For purposes of this subsection, the computation of debts
shall not include the secured or unsecured portions of--
``(1) debts secured by the debtor's principal residence if
the current value of that residence is less than the secured
debt limit; or
``(2) debts secured or formerly secured by real property
that was the debtor's principal residence that was sold in
foreclosure or that the debtor surrendered to the creditor if
the current value of such real property is less than the
secured debt limit.''; and
(2) by adding at the end of subsection (h) the following:
``(5) The requirements of paragraph (1) shall not apply in
a case under chapter 13 with respect to a debtor who submits
to the court a certification that the debtor has received
notice that the holder of a claim secured by the debtor's
principal residence may commence a foreclosure on the
debtor's principal residence.''.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITING CLAIMS ARISING FROM VIOLATIONS OF
CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS.

Section 502(b) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (8) by striking ``or'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (9) by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(10) the claim is subject to any remedy for damages or
rescission due to failure to comply with any applicable
requirement under the Truth in Lending Act, or any other
provision of applicable State or Federal consumer protection
law that was in force when the noncompliance took place,
notwithstanding the prior entry of a foreclosure judgment.''.

SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO MODIFY CERTAIN MORTGAGES.

Section 1322(b) of title 11, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (11) as paragraph (12),
(2) in paragraph (10) by striking ``and'' at the end, and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:
``(11) notwithstanding paragraph (2) and otherwise
applicable nonbankruptcy law, with respect to a claim for a
loan secured by a security interest in the debtor's principal
residence that is the subject of a notice that a foreclosure
may be commenced, modify the rights of the holder of such
claim--
``(A) by providing for payment of the amount of the allowed
secured claim as determined under section 506(a)(1);
``(B) if any applicable rate of interest is adjustable
under the terms of such security interest by prohibiting,
reducing, or delaying adjustments to such rate of interest
applicable on and after the date of filing of the plan;
``(C) by modifying the terms and conditions of such loan--
``(i) to extend the repayment period for a period that is
no longer than the longer of 40 years (reduced by the period
for which such loan has been outstanding) or the remaining
term of such loan, beginning on the date of the order for
relief under this chapter; and
``(ii) to provide for the payment of interest accruing
after the date of the order for relief under this chapter at
an annual percentage rate calculated at a fixed annual
percentage rate, in an amount equal to the then most recently
published annual yield on conventional mortgages published by
the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, as of
the applicable time set forth in the rules of the Board, plus
a reasonable premium for risk; and
``(D) by providing for payments of such modified loan
directly to the holder of the claim; and''.

SEC. 5. COMBATING EXCESSIVE FEES.

Section 1322(c) of title 11, the United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (2) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) the debtor, the debtor's property, and property of
the estate are not liable for a fee, cost, or charge that is
incurred while the case is pending and arises from a debt
that is secured by the debtor's principal residence except to
the extent that--
``(A) the holder of the claim for such debt files with the
court (annually or, in order to permit filing consistent with
clause (ii), at such more frequent periodicity as the court
determines necessary) notice of such fee, cost, or charge
before the earlier of--
``(i) 1 year after such fee, cost, or charge is incurred;
or
``(ii) 60 days before the closing of the case; and
``(B) such fee, cost, or charge--
``(i) is lawful under applicable nonbankruptcy law,
reasonable, and provided for in the applicable security
agreement; and
``(ii) is secured by property the value of which is greater
than the amount of such claim, including such fee, cost, or
charge;
``(4) the failure of a party to give notice described in
paragraph (3) shall be deemed a waiver of any claim for fees,
costs, or charges described in paragraph (3) for all
purposes, and any attempt to collect such fees, costs, or
charges shall constitute a violation of section 524(a)(2) or,
if the violation occurs before the date of discharge, of
section 362(a); and
``(5) a plan may provide for the waiver of any prepayment
penalty on a claim secured by the debtor's principal
residence.''.

SEC. 6. CONFIRMATION OF PLAN.

Section 1325(a) of title 11, the United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (8) by striking ``and'' at the end,
(2) in paragraph (9) by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
``(10) notwithstanding subclause (I) of paragraph
(5)(B)(i), the plan provides that the holder of a claim whose
rights are modified pursuant to section 1322(b)(11) retain
the lien until the later of--
``(A) the payment of such holder's allowed secured claim;
or
``(B) discharge under section 1328; and
``(11) the plan modifies a claim in accordance with section
1322(b)(11), and the court finds that such modification is in
good faith.''.

SEC. 7. DISCHARGE.

Section 1328 of title 11, the United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by inserting ``(other than payments to holders of
claims whose rights are modified under section 1322(b)(11)''
after ``paid'' the 1st place it appears, and
(B) in paragraph (1) by inserting ``or, to the extent of
the unpaid portion of an allowed secured claim, provided for
in section 1322(b)(11)'' after ``1322(b)(5)'', and
(2) in subsection (c)(1) by inserting ``or, to the extent
of the unpaid portion of an allowed secured claim, provided
for in section 1322(b)(11)'' after ``1322(b)(5)''.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

(a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b),
this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this
Act shall apply with respect to cases commenced under title
11 of the United States Code before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 63. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
improve access to advanced practice nurses and physicians assistants
under the Medicaid Program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I, again, introduce the Medicaid
Advanced Practice Nurse and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2009.
This legislation would change the Federal law to expand fee-for-service
Medicaid to include direct payment for services provided by all nurse
practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants. It
would ensure all nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and
physician assistants are recognized as primary care case managers, and
require Medicaid panels to include advanced practice nurses on their
managed care panels.
Advanced practice nurses are registered nurses who have attained
additional expertise in the clinical management of health conditions.
Typically, an advanced practice nurse holds a master's degree with
didactic and clinical preparation beyond that of the registered nurse.
They are employed in clinics, hospitals, and private practices. While
there are many titles given to these advanced practice

[[Page S67]]

nurses, such as pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse
practitioners, certified nurse midwives, certified registered nurse
anesthetists, and clinical nurse specialists, our current Medicaid law
has not kept up with the multiple specialties and titles of these
advanced practitioners, nor has it recognized the critical role
physician assistants play in the delivery of primary care.
I have been a long-time advocate of advanced practice nurses and
their ability to extend health care services to our most rural and
underserved communities. They have improved access to health care in
Hawaii and throughout the United States by their willingness to
practice in what some providers might see as undesirable locations--
extremely rural, frontier, or urban areas. This legislation ensures
they are recognized and reimbursed for providing the necessary health
care services patients need, and it gives those patients the choice of
selecting advanced practice nurses and physician assistants as their
primary care providers.
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. 63

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 ``Medicaid Advanced Practice
Nurses and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. IMPROVED ACCESS TO SERVICES OF ADVANCED PRACTICE
NURSES AND PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS UNDER STATE
MEDICAID PROGRAMS.

(a) Primary Care Case Management.--Section 1905(t)(2) of
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(t)(2)) is amended by
striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
``(B) A nurse practitioner (as defined in section
1861(aa)(5)(A)).
``(C) A certified nurse-midwife (as defined in section
1861(gg)).
``(D) A physician assistant (as defined in section
1861(aa)(5)(A)).''.
(b) Fee-for-Service Program.--Section 1905(a)(21) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(21)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(21)'';
(2) by striking ``services furnished by a certified
pediatric nurse practitioner or certified family nurse
practitioner (as defined by the Secretary) which the
certified pediatric nurse practitioner or certified family
nurse practitioner'' and inserting ``services furnished by a
nurse practitioner (as defined in section 1861(aa)(5)(A)) or
by a clinical nurse specialist (as defined in section
1861(aa)(5)(B)) which the nurse practitioner or clinical
nurse specialist'';
(3) by striking ``the certified pediatric nurse
practitioner or certified family nurse practitioner'' and
inserting ``the nurse practitioner or clinical nurse
specialist''; and
(4) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``and (B) services furnished by a physician
assistant (as defined in section 1861(aa)(5)) with the
supervision of a physician which the physician assistant is
legally authorized to perform under State law''.
(c) Including in Mix of Service Providers Under Medicaid
Managed Care Organizations.--Section 1932(b)(5)(B) of such
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-2(b)(5)(B)) is amended by inserting ``,
with such mix including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse
specialists, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives,
and certified registered nurse anesthetists (as defined in
section 1861(bb)(2))'' after ``services''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to items and services furnished in calendar
quarters beginning on or after 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not final
regulations to carry out such amendments have been
promulgated by such date.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 65. A bill to provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada
for settlement of certain claims against the United States; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, almost 14 years ago, I stood before you to
introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation
in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States
determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''
That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the
Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and
provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable
the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation
in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages,
if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.
Nine years ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims
reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate
and credible legal claim. By settlement stipulation, the United States
has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to
settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of
$1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after 7
years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the Court
of Federal Claims concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a
gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal
claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong.
Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of
Hearing Officer).
The bill I introduce today is to authorize the payment of those funds
that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and
equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim from amounts appropriated under
section 1304 of title 31 of the United States Code. If enacted, this
bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that
has for far too long been denied.
For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical
background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian
Pottawatomi.
The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the
descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical
Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the
18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the
United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is
now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional
land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of
cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the
threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were
repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be
secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain
annuities to the Pottawatomi.
In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal policy of
removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional
lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that
effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede
the remainder of their traditional lands--some 5 million acres in and
around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years, the
Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal
territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking
more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to
extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners
spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics--including threats
of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to agree to cede their
territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were present relented and on
September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through
what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven members of
the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the
``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.
In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the
United States would give to the Pottawatomis 5 million acres of
comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar
with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland.
But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and
unilaterally switched the land to 5 million acres in Iowa. The Treaty
Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa
land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept
the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice
would be done.'' Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4.
Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the

[[Page S68]]

Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to
evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land
was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''
While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis--
particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the
Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to
forcefully remove Pottawatomis who remained in the east--with
devastating consequences. As is true with many other American Indian
tribes, the forced removal westward came at great human cost. Many of
the Pottawatomi were forcefully removed by mercenaries who were paid on
a per capita basis government contract. Over one-half of the Indians
removed by these means died en route. Those who reached Iowa were
almost immediately removed further to inhospitable parts of Kansas
against their will and without their consent.
Knowing of these conditions, many of the Pottawatomis including most
of those in the Wisconsin Band vigorously resisted forced removal. To
avoid Federal troops and mercenaries, much of the Wisconsin Band
ultimately found it necessary to flee to Canada. They were often
pursued to the border by government troops, government-paid mercenaries
or both. Official files of the Canadian and United States governments
disclose that many Pottawatomis were forced to leave their homes
without their horses or any of their possessions other than the clothes
on their backs.
By the late 1830s, the government refused payment of annuities to any
Pottawatomi groups that had not removed west. In the 1860s, members of
the Wisconsin Band--those still in their traditional territory and
those forced to flee to Canada--petitioned Congress for the payment of
their treaty annuities promised under the Treaty of Chicago and all
other cession treaties. By the Act of June 25, 1864 (13 Stat. 172) the
Congress declared that the Wisconsin Band did not forfeit their
annuities by not removing and directed that the share of the
Pottawatomi Indians who had refused to relocate to the west should be
retained for their use in the United States Treasury. (H.R. Rep. No.
470, 64th Cong., p. 5, as quoted on page 3 of memo dated October 7,
1949). Nevertheless, much of the money was never paid to the Wisconsin
Band.
In 1903, the Wisconsin Band--most of whom now resided in three areas,
the States of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Province of Ontario--
petitioned the Senate once again to pay them their fair portion of
annuities as required by the law and treaties. (Sen. Doc. No. 185, 57th
Cong., 2d Sess.) By the Act of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 380), the
Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to investigate claims
made by the Wisconsin Band and establish a roll of the Wisconsin Band
Pottawatomis that still remained in the East. In addition, the Congress
ordered the Secretary to determine ``the Wisconsin Bands proportionate
shares of the annuities, trust funds, and other monies paid to or
expended for the tribe to which they belong in which the claimant
Indians have not shared, and the amount of such monies retained in the
Treasury of the United States to the credit of the claimant Indians as
directed the provision of the Act of June 25, 1864.''
In order to carry out the 1906 Act, the Secretary of the Interior
directed Dr. W.M. Wooster to conduct an enumeration of Wisconsin Band
Pottawatomi in both the United States and Canada. Dr. Wooster
documented 2007 Wisconsin Pottawatomis: 457 in Wisconsin and Michigan
and 1550 in Canada. He also concluded that the proportionate share of
annuities for the Pottawatomis in Wisconsin and Michigan was $477,339
and that the proportionate share of annuities due the Pottawatomi
Nation in Canada was $1,517,226. The Congress thereafter enacted a
series of appropriation Acts from June 30, 1913 to May 29, 1928 to
satisfy most of the monies owed to those Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis
residing in the United States. However, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis
who resided in Canada were never paid their share of the tribal funds.
Since that time, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has diligently and
continuously sought to enforce their treaty rights, although until this
congressional reference, they had never been provided their day in
court. In 1910, the United States and Great Britain entered into an
agreement for the purpose of dealing with claims between both
countries, including claims of Indian tribes within their respective
jurisdictions, by creating the Pecuniary Claims Tribunal. From 1910 to
1938, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada diligently sought to have their
claim heard in this international forum. Overlooked for more pressing
international matters of the period, including the intervention of
World War I, the Pottawatomis then came to the U.S. Congress for
redress of their claim.
In 1946, the Congress waived its sovereign immunity and established
the Indian Claims Commission for the purpose of granting tribes their
long-delayed day in court. The Indian Claims Commission Act, ICCA,
granted the Commission jurisdiction over claims such as the type
involved here. In 1948, the Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis from both sides
of the border--brought suit together in the Indian Claims Commission
for recovery of damages. Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., No. 28
(Ind. Cl. Comm. Filed May 4, 1948). Unfortunately, the Indian Claims
Commission dismissed Pottawatomi Nation in Canada's part of the claim
ruling that the Commission had no jurisdiction to consider claims of
Indians living outside territorial limits of the United States.
Hannahville Indian Community v. U.S., 115 Ct. Cl. 823 (1950). The claim
of the Wisconsin Band residing in the United States that was filed in
the Indian Claims Commission was finally decided in favor of the
Wisconsin Band by the U.S. Claims Court in 1983. Hannahville Indian
Community v. United States, 4 Ct. Cl. 445 (1983). The Court of Claims
concluded that the Wisconsin Band was owed a member's proportionate
share of unpaid annuities from 1838 through 1907 due under various
treaties, including the Treaty of Chicago and entered judgment for the
American Wisconsin Band Pottawatomis for any monies not paid. Still the
Pottawatomi Nation in Canada was excluded because of the jurisdictional
limits of the ICCA.
Undaunted, the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada came to the Senate and
after careful consideration, we finally gave them their long-awaited
day in court through the congressional reference process. The court has
now reported back to us that their claim is meritorious and that the
payment that this bill would make constitutes a ``fair, just and
equitable'' resolution to this claim.
The Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has sought justice for over 150
years. They have done all that we asked in order to establish their
claim. Now it is time for us to finally live up to the promise our
government made so many years ago. It will not correct all the wrongs
of the past, but it is a demonstration that this government is willing
to admit when it has left unfulfilled an obligation and that the United
States is willing to do what we can to see that justice--so long
delayed is not now denied.
Finally, I would just note that the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation
in Canada is supported through specific resolutions by the National
Congress of American Indians, the oldest, largest and most-
representative tribal organization here in the United States, the
Assembly of First Nations, which includes all recognized tribal
entities in Canada, and each and every of the Pottawatomi tribal groups
that remain in the United States today.
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. 65

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

SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.

(a) Authorization for Payment.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of
the Treasury shall pay to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada
$1,830,000 from amounts appropriated under section 1304 of
title 31, United States Code.
(b) Payment in Accordance With Stipulation for
Recommendation of Settlement.--The payment under subsection
(a) shall--
(1) be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of
the Stipulation for Recommendation of Settlement dated May
22, 2000, entered into between the Pottawatomi

[[Page S69]]

Nation in Canada and the United States (referred to in this
section as the ``Stipulation for Recommendation of
Settlement''); and
(2) be included in the report of the Chief Judge of the
United States Court of Federal Claims regarding Congressional
Reference No. 94-1037X, submitted to the Senate on January 4,
2001, in accordance with sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28,
United States Code.
(c) Full Satisfaction of Claims.--The payment under
subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of
the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada against the United States
that are referred to or described in the Stipulation for
Recommendation of Settlement.
(d) Nonapplicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution
Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) does not apply to the payment
under subsection (a).
______

By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 66. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former
members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability
rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to
the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to
travel on such aircraft; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is
of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation
is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military
aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our
country.
Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to
travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights
within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights
operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the
same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected
disabilities.
We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our
country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the
sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely
try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which
we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these
distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from
all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue
by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and
join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.
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. 66

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

SECTION 1. TRAVEL ON MILITARY AIRCRAFT OF CERTAIN DISABLED
FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 53 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1060b the
following new section:

``Sec. 1060c. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled
former members of the armed forces

``The Secretary of Defense shall permit any former member
of the armed forces who is entitled to compensation under the
laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for a
service-connected disability rated as total to travel, in the
same manner and to the same extent as retired members of the
armed forces, on unscheduled military flights within the
continental United States and on scheduled overseas flights
operated by the Air Mobility Command. The Secretary of
Defense shall permit such travel on a space-available
basis.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 53 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1060b the following new
item:

``1060c. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled former members
of the armed forces.''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 67. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize
certain disabled former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense
commissary and exchange stores; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to
enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably
from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30
percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the
military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is
impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of
incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this
gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it
serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their
sacrifices.
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. 67

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

SECTION 1. USE OF COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE STORES BY CERTAIN
DISABLED FORMER PRISONERS OF WAR.

(a) In General.--Chapter 54 of title 10, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1064 the
following new section:

``Sec. 1064a. Use of commissary and exchange stores: certain
disabled former prisoners of war

``(a) In General.--Under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, former prisoners of war described in
subsection (b) may use commissary and exchange stores.
``(b) Covered Individuals.--Subsection (a) applies to any
former prisoner of war who--
``(1) separated from active duty in the armed forces under
honorable conditions; and
``(2) has a service-connected disability rated by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs at 30 percent or more.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `former prisoner of war' has the meaning
given that term in section 101(32) of title 38.
``(2) The term `service-connected' has the meaning given
that term in section 101(16) of title 38.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 54 of such title is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1064 the following new
item:

``1064a. Use of commissary and exchange stores: certain disabled former
prisoners of war.''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 68. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to determine the
validity of the claims of certain Filipinos that they performed
military service on behalf of the United States during World War II; to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that
would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain
nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on
behalf of the United States during World War II.
Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and
sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation
would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified
individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits
that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes
older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to
the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us
the great Nation that we are today.
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. 68

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

SECTION 1. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

(a) In General.--Upon the written application of any person
who is a national of the Philippine Islands, the Secretary of
the Army shall determine whether such person performed any
military service in the Philippine Islands in aid of the
Armed Forces of the United States during World War II which
qualifies such person to receive any military, veterans', or
other benefits under the laws of the United States.
(b) Information to Be Considered.--In making a
determination for the purpose of subsection (a), the
Secretary shall consider all information and evidence
(relating to service referred to in subsection (a)) that is
available to the Secretary, including information and
evidence submitted by the applicant, if any.

SEC. 2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

(a) Issuance of Certificate of Service.--The Secretary of
the Army shall issue a certificate of service to each person
determined by the Secretary to have performed military
service described in section 1(a).
(b) Effect of Certificate of Service.--A certificate of
service issued to any person under subsection (a) shall, for
the purpose of any law of the United States, conclusively
establish the period, nature, and character of

[[Page S70]]

the military service described in the certificate.

SEC. 3. APPLICATIONS BY SURVIVORS.

An application submitted by a surviving spouse, child, or
parent of a deceased person described in section 1(a) shall
be treated as an application submitted by such person.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION PERIOD.

The Secretary of the Army may not consider for the purpose
of this Act any application received by the Secretary more
than two years after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF DETERMINATIONS BY THE
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

No benefits shall accrue to any person for any period
before the date of the enactment of this Act as a result of
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

The Secretary of the Army shall prescribe regulations to
carry out sections 1, 3, and 4.

SEC. 7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS.

Any entitlement of a person to receive veterans' benefits
by reason of this Act shall be administered by the Department
of Veterans Affairs pursuant to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

SEC. 8. DEFINITION.

In this Act, the term ``World War II'' means the period
beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on December 31,
1946.
______

By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Carper, Ms.
Murkowski, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Akaka):
S. 69. A bill to establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the
study of a prior Commission to investigate and determine facts and
circumstances surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation
to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December
1941 through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of
Japanese Descent Act.
The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast
and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact-
finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That
study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill
for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially
know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from
their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to
the U.S., and interned in American camps.
This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm
across international borders, into a community that did not pose an
immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of
passports or any other proof of citizenship, for exchange with
Americans with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our Government,
with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons
of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately
2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S.,
where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for
prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a
foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors'
immigration to Latin America.
Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of
Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization
Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin
Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner
exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and
subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America.
Others remained in the U.S., because their country of origin in Latin
America refused their re-entry, because they were unable to present a
passport.
When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin
Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a
part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories
of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps
in our country.
The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in
1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans.
Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled
upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate,
intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America.
Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was
unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to
include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.
I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and
Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would
establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980
Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts
surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin
Americans subject to a program of relocation, internment, and
deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would
give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain
and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.
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. 69

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 ``Commission on Wartime
Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese
Descent Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Based on a preliminary study published in
December 1982 by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and
Internment of Civilians, Congress finds the following:
(1) During World War II, the United States--
(A) expanded its internment program and national security
investigations to conduct the program and investigations in
Latin America; and
(B) financed relocation to the United States, and
internment, of approximately 2,300 Latin Americans of
Japanese descent, for the purpose of exchanging the Latin
Americans of Japanese descent for United States citizens held
by Axis countries.
(2) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of
Japanese descent from 13 Latin American countries were held
in the custody of the Department of State in internment camps
operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service from
1941 through 1948.
(3) Those men, women, and children either--
(A) were arrested without a warrant, hearing, or indictment
by local police, and sent to the United States for
internment; or
(B) in some cases involving women and children, voluntarily
entered internment camps to remain with their arrested
husbands, fathers, and other male relatives.
(4) Passports held by individuals who were Latin Americans
of Japanese descent were routinely confiscated before the
individuals arrived in the United States, and the Department
of State ordered United States consuls in Latin American
countries to refuse to issue visas to the individuals prior
to departure.
(5) Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American
internees of Japanese descent were considered to be and
treated as illegal entrants by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service. Thus, the internees became illegal
aliens in United States custody who were subject to
deportation proceedings for immediate removal from the United
States. In some cases, Latin American internees of Japanese
descent were deported to Axis countries to enable the United
States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
(6) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of
Japanese descent were relocated from their homes in Latin
America, detained in internment camps in the United States,
and in some cases, deported to Axis countries to enable the
United States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
(7) The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of
Civilians studied Federal actions conducted pursuant to
Executive Order 9066 (relating to authorizing the Secretary
of War to prescribe military areas). Although the United
States program of interning Latin Americans of Japanese
descent was not conducted pursuant to Executive Order 9066,
an examination of that extraordinary program is necessary to
establish a complete account of Federal actions to detain and
intern civilians of enemy or foreign nationality,
particularly of Japanese descent. Although historical
documents relating to the program exist in distant archives,
the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of
Civilians did not research those documents.
(8) Latin American internees of Japanese descent were a
group not covered by the

[[Page S71]]

Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (50 U.S.C. App. 1989b et seq.),
which formally apologized and provided compensation payments
to former Japanese Americans interned pursuant to Executive
Order 9066.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish a
fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the Commission
on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to
investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding
the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries
of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941
through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, if any,
based on preliminary findings by the original Commission and
new discoveries.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) In General.--There is established the Commission on
Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of
Japanese descent (referred to in this Act as the
``Commission'').
(b) Composition.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, who shall be appointed not later than 60 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, of whom--
(1) 3 members shall be appointed by the President;
(2) 3 members shall be appointed by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, on the joint recommendation of the
majority leader of the House of Representatives and the
minority leader of the House of Representatives; and
(3) 3 members shall be appointed by the President pro
tempore of the Senate, on the joint recommendation of the
majority leader of the Senate and the minority leader of the
Senate.
(c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be
appointed for the life of the Commission. A vacancy in the
Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled
in the same manner as the original appointment was made.
(d) Meetings.--
(1) First meeting.--The President shall call the first
meeting of the Commission not later than the later of--
(A) 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
(B) 30 days after the date of enactment of legislation
making appropriations to carry out this Act.
(2) Subsequent meetings.--Except as provided in paragraph
(1), the Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairperson.
(e) Quorum.--Five members of the Commission shall
constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may hold
hearings.
(f) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Commission shall
elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson from among its
members. The Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall serve for
the life of the Commission.

SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) In General.--The Commission shall--
(1) extend the study of the Commission on Wartime
Relocation and Internment of Civilians, established by the
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians
Act--
(A) to investigate and determine facts and circumstances
surrounding the United States' relocation, internment, and
deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese
descent from December 1941 through February 1948, and the
impact of those actions by the United States; and
(B) in investigating those facts and circumstances, to
review directives of the United States armed forces and the
Department of State requiring the relocation, detention in
internment camps, and deportation to Axis countries of Latin
Americans of Japanese descent; and
(2) recommend appropriate remedies, if any, based on
preliminary findings by the original Commission and new
discoveries.
(b) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the
first meeting of the Commission pursuant to section 3(d)(1),
the Commission shall submit a written report to Congress,
which shall contain findings resulting from the investigation
conducted under subsection (a)(1) and recommendations
described in subsection (a)(2).

SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings.--The Commission or, at its direction, any
subcommittee or member of the Commission, may, for the
purpose of carrying out this Act--
(1) hold such public hearings in such cities and countries,
sit and act at such times and places, take such testimony,
receive such evidence, and administer such oaths as the
Commission or such subcommittee or member considers
advisable; and
(2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and
testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books,
records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes,
and materials as the Commission or such subcommittee or
member considers advisable.
(b) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
(1) Issuance.--Subpoenas issued under subsection (a) shall
bear the signature of the Chairperson of the Commission and
shall be served by any person or class of persons designated
by the Chairperson for that purpose.
(2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to
obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a), the United
States district court for the judicial district in which the
subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may
issue an order requiring such person to appear at any
designated place to testify or to produce documentary or
other evidence. Any failure to obey the order of the court
may be punished by the court as a contempt of that court.
(c) Witness Allowances and Fees.--Section 1821 of title 28,
United States Code, shall apply to witnesses requested or
subpoenaed to appear at any hearing of the Commission. The
per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be paid
from funds available to pay the expenses of the Commission.
(d) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may
secure directly from any Federal department or agency such
information as the Commission considers necessary to perform
its duties. Upon request of the Chairperson of the
Commission, the head of such department or agency shall
furnish such information to the Commission.
(e) Postal Services.--The Commission may use the United
States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions
as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.

SEC. 6. PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government
shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent
of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of
the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United
States Code, for each day (including travel time) during
which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties
of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are
officers or employees of the United States shall serve
without compensation in addition to that received for their
services as officers or employees of the United States.
(b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission 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 Commission.
(c) Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate the employment of such personnel as may
be necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties.
(2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the personnel without regard to
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, relating to classification of positions
and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay
for the personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V
of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
(d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government
employee may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status or privilege.
(e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of such title.
(f) Other Administrative Matters.--The Commission may--
(1) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General
Services to procure necessary financial and administrative
services;
(2) enter into contracts to procure supplies, services, and
property; and
(3) enter into contracts with Federal, State, or local
agencies, or private institutions or organizations, for the
conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports,
and other activities necessary to enable the Commission to
perform its duties.

SEC. 7. TERMINATION.

The Commission shall terminate 90 days after the date on
which the Commission submits its report to Congress under
section 4(b).

SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
(b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the
authorization contained in this section shall remain
available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 70. A bill to restore the traditional day of observance of
Memorial Day, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many
Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost
sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would
restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half
mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the
President to issue a proclamation

[[Page S72]]

designating Memorial Day and Veterans Day as days for prayer and
ceremonies. This legislation would help restore the recognition our
veterans deserve for the sacrifices they have made on behalf of our
Nation.
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. 70

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

SECTION 1. RESTORATION OF TRADITIONAL DAY OF OBSERVANCE OF
MEMORIAL DAY.

(a) Designation of Legal Public Holiday.--Section 6103(a)
of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking
``Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.'' and inserting the
following:
``Memorial Day, May 30.''.
(b) Observances and Ceremonies.--Section 116 of title 36,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The last Monday in
May'' and inserting ``May 30''; and
(2) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) calling on the people of the United States to observe
Memorial Day as a day of ceremonies to show respect for
United States veterans of wars and other military conflicts;
and''.
(c) Display of Flag.--Section 6(d) of title 4, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``the last Monday in
May;'' and inserting ``May 30;''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
S. 72. A bill to reauthorize the programs of the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native
Hawaiians; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize
Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act. Senator Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.
Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation of funds for the
construction of low-income housing for native Hawaiians and further
provides authority for access to loan guarantees associated with the
construction of housing to serve native Hawaiians.
Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of native
Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and
homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that
inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest
in the Nation.
The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of
efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have
access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now
enjoyed by other Americans.
Mr. President, I would 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. 72

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 ``Hawaiian Homeownership
Opportunity Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HOUSING
ASSISTANCE.

Section 824 of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4243) is amended by
striking ``fiscal years'' and all that follows and inserting
the following: ``fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and
2013.''.

SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

Section 184A of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-13b) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``or as a result of a
lack of access to private financial markets'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Eligible housing.--The loan will be used to
construct, acquire, refinance, or rehabilitate 1- to 4-family
dwellings that are--
``(A) standard housing; and
``(B) located on Hawaiian Home Lands.''; and
(3) in subsection (j)(7), by striking ``fiscal years'' and
all that follows through the end of the paragraph and
inserting the following: ``fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011,
2012, and 2013.''.

SEC. 4. ELIGIBILITY OF DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS FOR
TITLE VI LOAN GUARANTEES.

Title VI of the Native American Housing Assistance and
Self-Determination Act of 1996 (25 U.S.C. 4191 et seq.) is
amended--
(1) in the title heading, by inserting ``AND NATIVE
HAWAIIAN'' after ``TRIBAL'';
(2) in section 601 (25 U.S.C. 4191)--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``or tribally designated housing entities
with tribal approval'' and inserting ``, by tribally
designated housing entities with tribal approval, or by the
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands,''; and
(ii) by inserting ``or 810, as applicable,'' after
``section 202'' ; and
(B) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or title VIII, as
applicable'' before the period at the end;
(3) in section 602 (25 U.S.C. 4192)--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``or
housing entity'' and inserting ``, housing entity, or
Department of Hawaiian Home Lands''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3)--

(I) by inserting ``or Department'' after ``tribe'';
(II) by inserting ``or title VIII, as applicable,'' after
``title I''; and
(III) by inserting ``or 811(b), as applicable'' before the
semicolon at the end; and

(B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``or housing entity''
and inserting ``, housing entity, or the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands'';
(4) in the first sentence of section 603 (25 U.S.C. 4193),
by striking ``or housing entity'' and inserting ``, housing
entity, or the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands''; and
(5) in section 605(b) (25 U.S.C. 4195(b)), by striking
``1997 through 2007'' and inserting ``2009 through 2013''.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 73. A bill to establish a systematic mortgage modification program
at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will limit foreclosures and stabilize home values through Federal
loan guarantees and standardized procedures for mortgage workout
agreements.
The Systematic Foreclosure Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act
would implement the foreclosure prevention plan developed by Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, Chairman Sheila Bair.
There are three key components of this legislation.
Servicers would be incentivized to modify mortgages, receiving $1,000
to help cover the costs of each loan modification; the Federal
Government would share up to 50 percent of any loss should the
homeowner default after receiving a modification; and participating
servicers would be required to systematically review and modify all
suitable loans in their portfolios, applying a standard calculation to
help expedite loan modifications as cost-effectively as possible.
The FDIC estimates that roughly 2.2 million home loans, worth $444
billion, could be modified under this plan, with 1.5 million
foreclosures avoided.
This legislation is projected to cost at least $25 billion; however,
no additional spending is necessary.
This effort would be funded solely through the Troubled Assets Relief
Program, TARP, to ensure that one of the core objectives of the bill,
assistance to homeowners, is achieved.
The foreclosure crisis and declining housing market remain at the
epicenter of the economic challenges we face. And, although the Federal
Government has taken unprecedented steps to address this problem, they
have not been sufficient.
Foreclosures are in the best interest of no one.
Neighborhoods are decimated when homes are repossessed or left
vacant, property values decline, local economies suffer, and crime
often increases in blighted areas. Lenders must sustain the costs of
foreclosure and are left with the burden of reselling properties in a
distressed market.
Homeowners are forced to give up on the American dream, and in some
cases, tenants are forced out of homes they have been renting.
To date, no TARP funds have been allocated by Treasury to directly
address the foreclosure crisis.
This must change, and it must change now.
According to the FDIC, the pace of loan modifications continues to be
very slow, with only 4 percent of troubled mortgages being modified to
prevent foreclosures each month.
A systematic approach is needed to expedite this process. The FDIC
has

[[Page S73]]

implemented such a program successfully at Indy Mac Federal Bank, to
reduce mortgage payments as low as 31 percent of monthly income.
Loan modifications are based on interest rate reductions, extended
loan terms, and principal forbearance.
Unfortunately, banks that have received TARP funds have not been
compelled to implement foreclosure reduction measures, and adequate
incentive structures are not in place.
This legislation provides prudent and cost-effective steps to improve
assistance for struggling homeowners while also stabilizing the housing
market.
Foreclosures have had a devastating impact on our national economy,
and the damage in my state has been particularly severe.
California accounts for 1/3 of all foreclosure activity in the United
States.
Roughly 800,000 foreclosures will be filed in my state in 2008--a 70
percent increase over 2007, when 481,392 foreclosures were filed in
California.
The foreclosure rate in California is the fourth highest in the
Nation, with one foreclosure filing for every 218 households.
In fact, 6 of the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure
rate in the Nation are in California.
This includes: Merced--one out of every 76 homes in foreclosure;
Modesto--one out of every 93 homes in foreclosure; Stockton--one out of
every 94 homes in foreclosure; Riverside and San Bernardino--one out of
every 107 homes in foreclosure; Bakersfield--one out of every 129 homes
in foreclosure; and Vallejo and Fairfield--one out of every 133 homes
in foreclosure.
And, the situation is only getting worse.
Property values have plummeted across California, making it difficult
for many residents with adjustable rate mortgages to refinance into
more stable, fixed rate products.
One California community is in a special category of need: the city
of Stockton, which has been referred to as ``America's foreclosure
capital.''
The foreclosure crisis has devastated this city of more than 260,000
residents.
Home foreclosures impact neighbors and reduce property values.
But, the spillover effect in Stockton has been overwhelming.
Jobs: The downturn in the construction industry has contributed to an
unemployment rate of 11.9 percent in San Joaquin County, well above the
national average.
Schools: Foreclosures have displaced many students who were forced to
change schools or leave the area when their families lost their homes.
The student population of Stockton Unified School District, the
biggest in San Joaquin County, was down about 200 students last year.
Student displacement has a direct impact on school budgets, which are
linked to student attendance.
Most unfortunately, the emotional impact on children being forced to
switch schools in the middle of the year can be tremendous.
Public Services: High foreclosure rates have taken a toll on the city
of Stockton's budget.
Stockton now faces a nearly $25 million budget deficit.
City officials have been forced to consider voluntary buyouts for
municipal employees and mandatory 10-day furloughs to help close the
gap.
Because property values have fallen--due to foreclosures and
increased inventory--Stockton also is facing lower tax revenues, which
are depended upon to fill the city's $186 million general fund.
This could have a dramatic effect on the city's emergency services;
about 75 percent of Stockton's general fund pays for police and fire
services.
It is essential that we not forget communities such as Stockton. We
cannot sit idly by and watch them fall through the cracks.
This legislation is a much-needed step forward to provide relief to
Main Street.
Millions of Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure, and
millions more are at risk of losing their homes in the coming months.
Part of this problem was driven by abusive and predatory lending
practices.
Part of the problem can be attributed to lax underwriting standards
and regulators who were asleep at the wheel.
Part of this problem was due to individuals who made bad choices.
But, this is a problem that now impacts--either directly or
indirectly--all hard-working American families.
These are significant challenges we face, and innovative solutions
are required.
This bill will serve as a companion to legislation introduced in the
House by my colleague from California, Representative Maxine Waters.
I look forward to working with her, and my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle, to pass this important legislation as soon as possible.
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. 73

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 ``Systematic Foreclosure
Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act''.

SEC. 2. SYSTEMATIC FORECLOSURE PREVENTION AND MORTGAGE
MODIFICATION PLAN ESTABLISHED.

(a) In General.--The Chairperson of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation shall establish a systematic
foreclosure prevention and mortgage modification program by--
(1) paying servicers $1,000 to cover expenses for each loan
modified according to the required standards; and
(2) sharing up to 50 percent of any losses incurred if a
modified loan should subsequently re-default.
(b) Program Components.--The program established under
subsection (a) shall include the following components:
(1) Eligible borrowers.--The program shall be limited to
loans secured by owner-occupied properties.
(2) Exclusion for early payment default.--To promote
sustainable mortgages, government loss sharing shall be
available only after the borrower has made a minimum of 6
payments on the modified mortgage.
(3) Standard net present value test.--In order to promote
consistency and simplicity in implementation and audit, a
standard test comparing the expected net present value of
modifying past due loans compared to the net present value of
foreclosing on them will be applied. Under this test,
standard assumptions shall be used to ensure that a
consistent standard for affordability is provided based on a
31 percent borrower mortgage debt-to-income ratio.
(4) Systematic loan review by participating servicers.--
Participating servicers shall be required to undertake a
systematic review of all of the loans under their management,
to subject each loan to a standard net present value test to
determine whether it is a suitable candidate for
modification, and to modify all loans that pass this test.
The penalty for failing to undertake such a systematic review
and to carry out modifications where they are justified would
be disqualification from further participation in the program
until such a systematic program was introduced.
(5) Modifications.--Modifications may include any of the
following:
(A) Reduction in interest rates and fees.
(B) Forbearance of principal.
(C) Extension of the term to maturity.
(D) Other similar modifications.
(6) Reduced loss share percentage for ``underwater
loans''.--For loan-to-value ratios above 100 percent, the
government loss share shall be progressively reduced from 50
percent to 20 percent as the current loan-to-value ratio
rises, except that loss sharing shall not be available if the
loan-to-value ratio of the first lien exceeds 150 percent.
(7) Simplified loss share calculation.--In order to ensure
the administrative efficiency of this program, the
calculation of loss share basis would be as simple as
possible. In general terms, the calculation shall be based on
the difference between the net present value, as defined by
the Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
of the modified loan and the amount of recoveries obtained in
a disposition by refinancing, short sale, or real estate
owned sale, net of disposal costs as estimated according to
industry standards. Interim modifications shall be allowed.
(8) De minimis test.--To lower administrative costs, a de
minimis test shall be used to exclude from loss sharing any
modification that does not lower the monthly payment at least
10 percent.
(9) 8-year limit on loss sharing payment.--The loss sharing
guarantee shall terminate at the end of the 8-year period
beginning on the date the modification was consummated.
(c) Regulations.--The Corporation shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary to implement this Act and
prevent evasions thereof.
(d) Troubled Assets.--The costs incurred by the Federal
Government in carrying out the loan modification program
established under this section shall be covered out of the
funds made available to the Secretary of the

[[Page S74]]

Treasury under section 118 of the Emergency Economic
Stabilization Act of 2008.
(e) Modifications to Program.--The Chairperson of the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation may make any
modification to the program established under subsection (a)
that the Chairperson determines are appropriate for the
purpose of maximizing the number of foreclosures prevented.
(f) Report.--Before the end of the 6-month period beginning
on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairperson of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall submit a
progress report to the Congress containing such findings and
such recommendations for legislative or administrative action
as the Chairperson may determine to be appropriate.
______

By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Martinez, Mr.
Cornyn, and Mr. Ensign):
S. 74. A bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage
penalty.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to
provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most
egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest
priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American
taxpayers of this punitive burden.
We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and
provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and
enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice
that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent
of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400.
Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness,
but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now
save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax
increase looms in the future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was
restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect
through 2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a taxable event and a
significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes
unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in
making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this
important reform.
The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage
penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for
people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in
our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living
in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to
suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also
less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges
such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and
married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.
We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering
would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should
not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we
started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today.
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. 74

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 ``Permanent Marriage Penalty
Relief Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET ON MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF.

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions
of such Act) shall not apply to--
(1) sections 301, 302, and 303 of such Act (relating to
marriage penalty relief), and
(2) sections 101(b) and 101(c) of the Working Families Tax
Relief Act of 2004 (relating to marriage penalty relief in
the standard deduction and 15-percent income tax bracket,
respectively).
______

By Mr. KOHL:
S. 75. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
require the use of generic drugs under the Medicare part D prescription
drug program when available unless the brand name drug is determined to
be medically necessary; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Generics First
Act. This legislation requires the Federal Government's Medicare Part D
prescription drug program to use generic drugs whenever available,
unless a brand-name drug is determined to be medically necessary by a
physician. Modeled after similar provisions in many state-administered
Medicaid programs, this measure would reduce the high costs of the new
prescription drug program and keep seniors from reaching the current
coverage gap, or ``donut hole,'' by guiding beneficiaries toward cost-
saving generic drug alternatives.
We know that the cost of prescription drugs is prohibitive, placing a
financial strain on seniors, families, and businesses that are
struggling to pay their health care bills. According to the National
Bureau of Economic Research, spending on prescription drugs totaled
$227.5 billion in 2007. People need help now and we must respond by
expanding access to generic drugs. Generics, which on average cost 60
percent less than their brand-name counterparts, are a big part of the
solution to health care costs that are spiraling out of control.
Generic drugs that are approved by the FDA must meet the same
rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness as brand-name drugs. In
addition to being safe and effective, the generic must have the same
active ingredient or ingredients, be the same strength, and have the
same labeling for the approved uses as the brand-name drug. In other
words, generics perform the same medicinal purposes as their respective
brand-name product.
We know generic drugs have the potential to save seniors thousands of
dollars and curb health spending for the Federal Government, employers,
and families. Every year, more blockbuster drugs are coming off patent,
setting up the potential for billions of dollars in savings. This
legislation is just one part of a larger agenda I'm pushing to remove
the obstacles that prevent generics from getting to market, and I urge
my colleagues to support this legislation.
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. 75

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 ``Generics First Act of
2009''.

SEC. 2. REQUIRED USE OF GENERIC DRUGS UNDER THE MEDICARE PART
D PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM.

(a) In General.--Section 1860D-2(e)(2) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-102(e)(2)) is amended by adding
at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) Non-generic drugs unless certain requirements are
met.--
``(i) In general.--Such term does not include a drug that
is a nongeneric drug unless--

``(I) no generic drug has been approved under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the drug; or
``(II) the nongeneric drug is determined to be medically
necessary by the individual prescribing the drug and prior
authorization for the drug is obtained from the Secretary.

``(ii) Definitions.--In this subparagraph:

``(I) Generic drug.--The term `generic drug' means a drug
that is the subject of an application approved under
subsection (b)(2) or (j) of section 505 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, for which the Secretary has made a
determination that the drug is the therapeutic equivalent of
a listed drug under section 505(j)(7) of such Act.
``(II) Nongeneric drug.--The term `nongeneric drug' means a
drug that is the subject of an application approved under--

``(aa) section 505(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act; or
``(bb) section 505(b)(2) of such Act and that has been
determined to be not therapeutically equivalent to any listed
drug.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to drugs dispensed on or after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 76. A bill to amend the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement
Act to revise and extend that Act; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today, again, to introduce a bill
to reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator
Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.
The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law
in 1988, and has been reauthorized several times throughout the years.

[[Page S75]]

The Act provides authority for a range of programs and services
designed to improve the health care status of the native people of
Hawaii.
With the enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act
and the establishment of native Hawaiian health care systems on most of
the islands that make up the State of Hawaii, we have witnessed
significant improvements in the health status of native Hawaiians, but
as the findings of unmet needs and health disparities set forth in this
bill make clear, we still have a long way to go.
For instance, native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality
rates in the State of Hawaii--rates that are 22 percent higher than the
rate for the total State male population and 64 percent higher than the
rate for the total State female population. Nationally, native
Hawaiians have the third highest mortality rate as a result of breast
cancer.
With respect to diabetes, in 2004 native Hawaiians had the highest
mortality rate associated with diabetes in the State--a rate which is
119 percent higher than the statewide rate for all racial groups.
When it comes to heart disease, the mortality rate of native
Hawaiians associated with heart disease is 86 percent higher than the
rate for the entire State and the mortality rate for hypertension is 46
percent higher than that for the entire State.
These statistics on the health status of native Hawaiians are but a
small part of the long list of date that makes clear that our objective
of assuring that the native people of Hawaii attain some parity of good
health comparable to that of the larger U.S. population has not yet
been achieved.
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. 76

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 ``Native Hawaiian Health Care
Improvement Reauthorization Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE
IMPROVEMENT ACT.

The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act (42 U.S.C.
11701 et seq.) is amended to read as follows:

``SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

``(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the `Native
Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act'.
``(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

``Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
``Sec. 2. Findings.
``Sec. 3. Definitions.
``Sec. 4. Declaration of national Native Hawaiian health policy.
``Sec. 5. Comprehensive health care master plan for Native Hawaiians.
``Sec. 6. Functions of Papa Ola Lokahi.
``Sec. 7. Native Hawaiian health care.
``Sec. 8. Administrative grant for Papa Ola Lokahi.
``Sec. 9. Administration of grants and contracts.
``Sec. 10. Assignment of personnel.
``Sec. 11. Native Hawaiian health scholarships and fellowships.
``Sec. 12. Report.
``Sec. 13. Use of Federal Government facilities and sources of supply.
``Sec. 14. Demonstration projects of national significance.
``Sec. 15. Rule of construction.
``Sec. 16. Compliance with Budget Act.
``Sec. 17. Severability.

``SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

``(a) In General.--Congress finds that--
``(1) Native Hawaiians begin their story with the Kumulipo,
which details the creation and interrelationship of all
things, including the evolvement of Native Hawaiians as
healthy and well people;
``(2) Native Hawaiians--
``(A) are a distinct and unique indigenous people with a
historical continuity to the original inhabitants of the
Hawaiian archipelago within Ke Moananui, the Pacific Ocean;
and
``(B) have a distinct society that was first organized
almost 2,000 years ago;
``(3) the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians are
intrinsically tied to the deep feelings and attachment of
Native Hawaiians to their lands and seas;
``(4) the long-range economic and social changes in Hawai'i
over the 19th and early 20th centuries have been devastating
to the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians;
``(5) Native Hawaiians have never directly relinquished to
the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty
as a people or over their national territory, either through
their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;
``(6) the Native Hawaiian people are determined to
preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations, in
accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs,
their customs, practices, language, social institutions,
ancestral territory, and cultural identity;
``(7) in referring to themselves, Native Hawaiians use the
term `Kanaka Maoli', a term frequently used in the 19th
century to describe the native people of Hawai'i;
``(8) the constitution and statutes of the State of
Hawai'i--
``(A) acknowledge the distinct land rights of Native
Hawaiian people as beneficiaries of the public lands trust;
and
``(B) reaffirm and protect the unique right of the Native
Hawaiian people to practice and perpetuate their cultural and
religious customs, beliefs, practices, and language;
``(9) at the time of the arrival of the first nonindigenous
people in Hawai'i in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived
in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistence social
system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated
language, culture, and religion;
``(10) a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian
Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first
King of Hawai'i;
``(11) throughout the 19th century until 1893, the United
States--
``(A) recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Nation;
``(B) extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to
the Hawaiian Government; and
``(C) entered into treaties and conventions with the
Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826,
1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;
``(12) in 1893, John L. Stevens, the United States Minister
assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawai'i,
conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the
Kingdom, including citizens of the United States, to
overthrow the indigenous and lawful government of Hawai'i;
``(13) in pursuance of that conspiracy--
``(A) the United States Minister and the naval
representative of the United States caused armed forces of
the United States Navy to invade the sovereign Hawaiian
Nation in support of the overthrow of the indigenous and
lawful Government of Hawai'i; and
``(B) after that overthrow, the United States Minister
extended diplomatic recognition of a provisional government
formed by the conspirators without the consent of the native
people of Hawai'i or the lawful Government of Hawai'i, in
violation of--
``(i) treaties between the Government of Hawai'i and the
United States; and
``(ii) international law;
``(14) in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893,
President Grover Cleveland--
``(A) reported fully and accurately on those illegal
actions;
``(B) acknowledged that by those acts, described by the
President as acts of war, the government of a peaceful and
friendly people was overthrown; and
``(C) concluded that a `substantial wrong has thus been
done which a due regard for our national character as well as
the rights of the injured people required that we should
endeavor to repair';
``(15) Queen Lili`uokalani, the lawful monarch of Hawai'i,
and the Hawaiian Patriotic League, representing the
aboriginal citizens of Hawai'i, promptly petitioned the
United States for redress of those wrongs and restoration of
the indigenous government of the Hawaiian nation, but no
action was taken on that petition;
``(16) in 1993, Congress enacted Public Law 103-150 (107
Stat. 1510), in which Congress--
``(A) acknowledged the significance of those events; and
``(B) apologized to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the
people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom
of Hawai'i with the participation of agents and citizens of
the United States, and the resulting deprivation of the
rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
``(17) between 1897 and 1898, when the total Native
Hawaiian population in Hawai'i was less than 40,000, more
than 38,000 Native Hawaiians signed petitions (commonly known
as `Ku'e Petitions') protesting annexation by the United
States and requesting restoration of the monarchy;
``(18) despite Native Hawaiian protests, in 1898, the
United States--
``(A) annexed Hawai'i through Resolution No. 55 (commonly
known as the `Newlands Resolution') (30 Stat. 750), without
the consent of, or compensation to, the indigenous people of
Hawai'i or the sovereign government of those people; and
``(B) denied those people the mechanism for expression of
their inherent sovereignty through self-government and self-
determination of their lands and ocean resources;
``(19) through the Newlands Resolution and the Act of April
30, 1900 (commonly known as the `1900 Organic Act') (31 Stat.
141, chapter 339), the United States--
``(A) received 1,750,000 acres of land formerly owned by
the Crown and Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom; and
``(B) exempted the land from then-existing public land laws
of the United States by mandating that the revenue and
proceeds from that land be `used solely for the benefit of
the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for education and
other public purposes', thereby establishing a special trust
relationship between the United States and the inhabitants of
Hawai'i;

[[Page S76]]

``(20) in 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42), which--
``(A) designated 200,000 acres of the ceded public land for
exclusive homesteading by Native Hawaiians; and
``(B) affirmed the trust relationship between the United
States and Native Hawaiians, as expressed by Secretary of the
Interior Franklin K. Lane, who was cited in the Committee
Report of the Committee on Territories of the House of
Representatives as stating, `One thing that impressed me . .
. was the fact that the natives of the islands . . . for whom
in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in
numbers and many of them are in poverty.';
``(21) in 1938, Congress again acknowledged the unique
status of the Native Hawaiian people by including in the Act
of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781), a provision--
``(A) to lease land within the extension to Native
Hawaiians; and
``(B) to permit fishing in the area `only by native
Hawaiian residents of said area or of adjacent villages and
by visitors under their guidance';
``(22) under the Act of March 18, 1959 (48 U.S.C. prec. 491
note; 73 Stat. 4), the United States--
``(A) transferred responsibility for the administration of
the Hawaiian home lands to the State; but
``(B) reaffirmed the trust relationship that existed
between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people by
retaining the exclusive power to enforce the trust, including
the power to approve land exchanges and legislative
amendments affecting the rights of beneficiaries under that
Act;
``(23) under the Act referred to in paragraph (22), the
United States--
``(A) transferred responsibility for administration over
portions of the ceded public lands trust not retained by the
United States to the State; but
``(B) reaffirmed the trust relationship that existed
between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people by
retaining the legal responsibility of the State for the
betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians under
section 5(f) of that Act (73 Stat. 6);
``(24) in 1978, the people of Hawai'i--
``(A) amended the constitution of Hawai'i to establish the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs; and
``(B) assigned to that Office the authority--
``(i) to accept and hold in trust for the Native Hawaiian
people real and personal property transferred from any
source;
``(ii) to receive payments from the State owed to the
Native Hawaiian people in satisfaction of the pro rata share
of the proceeds of the public land trust established by
section 5(f) of the Act of March 18, 1959 (48 U.S.C. prec.
491 note; 73 Stat. 6);
``(iii) to act as the lead State agency for matters
affecting the Native Hawaiian people; and
``(iv) to formulate policy on affairs relating to the
Native Hawaiian people;
``(25) the authority of Congress under the Constitution to
legislate in matters affecting the aboriginal or indigenous
people of the United States includes the authority to
legislate in matters affecting the native people of Alaska
and Hawai'i;
``(26) the United States has recognized the authority of
the Native Hawaiian people to continue to work toward an
appropriate form of sovereignty, as defined by the Native
Hawaiian people in provisions set forth in legislation
returning the Hawaiian Island of Kaho`olawe to custodial
management by the State in 1994;
``(27) in furtherance of the trust responsibility for the
betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians, the United
States has established a program for the provision of
comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention
services to maintain and improve the health status of the
Hawaiian people;
``(28) that program is conducted by the Native Hawaiian
Health Care Systems and Papa Ola Lokahi;
``(29) health initiatives implemented by those and other
health institutions and agencies using Federal assistance
have been responsible for reducing the century-old morbidity
and mortality rates of Native Hawaiian people by--
``(A) providing comprehensive disease prevention;
``(B) providing health promotion activities; and
``(C) increasing the number of Native Hawaiians in the
health and allied health professions;
``(30) those accomplishments have been achieved through
implementation of--
``(A) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (Public
Law 100-579); and
``(B) the reauthorization of that Act under section 9168 of
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public
Law 102-396; 106 Stat. 1948);
``(31) the historical and unique legal relationship between
the United States and Native Hawaiians has been consistently
recognized and affirmed by Congress through the enactment of
more than 160 Federal laws that extend to the Native Hawaiian
people the same rights and privileges accorded to American
Indian, Alaska Native, Eskimo, and Aleut communities,
including--
``(A) the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
2991 et seq.);
``(B) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C.
1996);
``(C) the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20
U.S.C. 80q et seq.); and
``(D) the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
``(32) the United States has recognized and reaffirmed the
trust relationship to the Native Hawaiian people through
legislation that authorizes the provision of services to
Native Hawaiians, specifically--
``(A) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et
seq.);
``(B) the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act Amendments of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.);
``(C) the Veterans' Benefits and Services Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-322);
``(D) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et
seq.);
``(E) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (42
U.S.C. 11701 et seq.);
``(F) the Health Professions Reauthorization Act of 1988
(Public Law 100-607; 102 Stat. 3122);
``(G) the Nursing Shortage Reduction and Education
Extension Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-607; 102 Stat. 3153);
``(H) the Handicapped Programs Technical Amendments Act of
1988 (Public Law 100-630);
``(I) the Indian Health Care Amendments of 1988 (Public Law
100-713); and
``(J) the Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act of
1990 (Public Law 101-527);
``(33) the United States has affirmed that historical and
unique legal relationship to the Hawaiian people by
authorizing the provision of services to Native Hawaiians to
address problems of alcohol and drug abuse under the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (21 U.S.C. 801 note; Public Law 99-
570);
``(34) in addition, the United States--
``(A) has recognized that Native Hawaiians, as aboriginal,
indigenous, native people of Hawai'i, are a unique population
group in Hawai'i and in the continental United States; and
``(B) has so declared in--
``(i) the documents of the Office of Management and Budget
entitled--

``(I) `Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and
Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity' and dated
October 30, 1997; and
``(II) `Provisional Guidance on the Implementation of the
1997 Standards for Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity' and
dated December 15, 2000;

``(ii) the document entitled `Guidance on Aggregation and
Allocation of Data on Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring
and Enforcement' (Bulletin 00-02 to the Heads of Executive
Departments and Establishments) and dated March 9, 2000;
``(iii) the document entitled `Questions and Answers when
Designing Surveys for Information Collections' (Memorandum
for the President's Management Council) and dated January 20,
2006;
``(iv) Executive order number 13125 (64 Fed. Reg. 31105;
relating to increasing participation of Asian Americans and
Pacific Islanders in Federal programs) (June 7, 1999);
``(v) the document entitled `HHS Tribal Consultation
Policy' and dated January 2005; and
``(vi) the Department of Health and Human Services
Intradepartment Council on Native American Affairs, Revised
Charter, dated March 7, 2005; and
``(35) despite the United States having expressed in Public
Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510) its commitment to a policy of
reconciliation with the Native Hawaiian people for past
grievances--
``(A) the unmet health needs of the Native Hawaiian people
remain severe; and
``(B) the health status of the Native Hawaiian people
continues to be far below that of the general population of
the United States.
``(b) Finding of Unmet Needs and Health Disparities.--
Congress finds that the unmet needs and serious health
disparities that adversely affect the Native Hawaiian people
include the following:
``(1) Chronic disease and illness.--
``(A) Cancer.--
``(i) In general.--With respect to all cancer--

``(I) as an underlying cause of death in the State, the
cancer mortality rate of Native Hawaiians of 218.3 per
100,000 residents is 50 percent higher than the rate for the
total population of the State of 145.4 per 100,000 residents;
``(II) Native Hawaiian males have the highest cancer
mortality rates in the State for cancers of the lung, colon,
and rectum, and for all cancers combined;
``(III) Native Hawaiian females have the highest cancer
mortality rates in the State for cancers of the lung, breast,
colon, rectum, pancreas, stomach, ovary, liver, cervix,
kidney, and uterus, and for all cancers combined; and
``(IV) for the period of 1995 through 2000--

``(aa) the cancer mortality rate for all cancers for Native
Hawaiian males of 217 per 100,000 residents was 22 percent
higher than the rate for all males in the State of 179 per
100,000 residents; and
``(bb) the cancer mortality rate for all cancers for Native
Hawaiian females of 192 per 100,000 residents was 64 percent
higher than the rate for all females in the State of 117 per
100,000 residents.
``(ii) Breast cancer.--With respect to breast cancer--

[[Page S77]]

``(I) Native Hawaiians have the highest mortality rate in
the State from breast cancer (30.79 per 100,000 residents),
which is 33 percent higher than the rate for Caucasian
Americans (23.07 per 100,000 residents) and 106 percent
higher than the rate for Chinese Americans (14.96 per 100,000
residents); and
``(II) nationally, Native Hawaiians have the third-highest
mortality rate as a result of breast cancer (25.0 per 100,000
residents), behind African Americans (31.4 per 100,000
residents) and Caucasian Americans (27.0 per 100,000
residents).

``(iii) Cancer of the cervix.--Native Hawaiians have the
highest mortality rate as a result of cancer of the cervix in
the State (3.65 per 100,000 residents), followed by Filipino
Americans (2.69 per 100,000 residents) and Caucasian
Americans (2.61 per 100,000 residents).
``(iv) Lung cancer.--Native Hawaiian males and females have
the highest mortality rates as a result of lung cancer in the
State, at 74.79 per 100,000 for males and 47.84 per 100,000
females, which are higher than the rates for the total
population of the State by 48 percent for males and 93
percent for females.
``(v) Prostate cancer.--Native Hawaiian males have the
third-highest mortality rate as a result of prostate cancer
in the State (21.48 per 100,000 residents), with Caucasian
Americans having the highest mortality rate as a result of
prostate cancer (23.96 per 100,000 residents).
``(B) Diabetes.--With respect to diabetes, in 2004--
``(i) Native Hawaiians had the highest mortality rate as a
result of diabetes mellitis (28.9 per 100,000 residents) in
the State, which is 119 percent higher than the rate for all
racial groups in the State (13.2 per 100,000 residents);
``(ii) the prevalence of diabetes for Native Hawaiians was
12.7 percent, which is 87 percent higher than the total
prevalence for all residents of the State of 6.8 percent; and
``(iii) a higher percentage of Native Hawaiians with
diabetes experienced diabetic retinopathy, as compared to
other population groups in the State.
``(C) Asthma.--With respect to asthma and lower respiratory
disease--
``(i) in 2004, mortality rates for Native Hawaiians (31.6
per 100,000 residents) from chronic lower respiratory disease
were 52 percent higher than rates for the total population of
the State (20.8 per 100,000 residents); and
``(ii) in 2005, the prevalence of current asthma in Native
Hawaiian adults was 12.8 percent, which is 71 percent higher
than the prevalence of the total population of the State of
7.5 percent.
``(D) Circulatory diseases.--
``(i) Heart disease.--With respect to heart disease--

``(I) in 2004, the mortality rate for Native Hawaiians as a
result of heart disease (305.5 per 100,000 residents) was 86
percent higher than the rate for the total population of the
State (164.3 per 100,000 residents); and
``(II) in 2005, the prevalence for heart attack was 4.4
percent for Native Hawaiians, which is 22 percent higher than
the prevalence for the total population of 3.6 percent.

``(ii) Cerebrovascular diseases.--With respect to
cerebrovascular diseases--

``(I) the mortality rate from cerebrovascular diseases for
Native Hawaiians (75.6 percent) was 64 percent higher than
the rate for the total population of the State (46 percent);
and
``(II) in 2005, the prevalence for stroke was 4.9 percent
for Native Hawaiians, which is 69 percent higher than the
prevalence for the total population of the State (2.9
percent).

``(iii) Other circulatory diseases.--With respect to other
circulatory diseases (including high blood pressure and
atherosclerosis)--

``(I) in 2004, the mortality rate for Native Hawaiians of
20.6 per 100,000 residents was 46 percent higher than the
rate for the total population of the State of 14.1 per
100,000 residents; and
``(II) in 2005, the prevalence of high blood pressure for
Native Hawaiians was 26.7 percent, which is 10 percent higher
than the prevalence for the total population of the State of
24.2 percent.

``(2) Infectious disease and illness.--With respect to
infectious disease and illness--
``(A) in 1998, Native Hawaiians comprised 20 percent of all
deaths resulting from infectious diseases in the State for
all ages; and
``(B) the incidence of acquired immune deficiency syndrome
for Native Hawaiians is at least twice as high per 100,000
residents (10.5 percent) than the incidence for any other
non-Caucasian group in the State.
``(3) Injuries.--With respect to injuries--
``(A) the mortality rate for Native Hawaiians as a result
of injuries (32 per 100,000 residents) is 16 percent higher
than the rate for the total population of the State (27.5 per
100,000 residents);
``(B) 32 percent of all deaths of individuals between the
ages of 18 and 24 years resulting from injuries were Native
Hawaiian; and
``(C) the 2 primary causes of Native Hawaiian deaths in
that age group were motor vehicle accidents (30 percent) and
intentional self-harm (39 percent).
``(4) Dental health.--With respect to dental health--
``(A) Native Hawaiian children experience significantly
higher rates of dental caries and unmet treatment needs as
compared to other children in the continental United States
and other ethnic groups in the State;
``(B) the prevalence rate of dental caries in the primary
(baby) teeth of Native Hawaiian children aged 5 to 9 years of
4.2 per child is more than twice the national average rate of
1.9 per child in that age range;
``(C) 81.9 percent of Native Hawaiian children aged 6 to 8
have 1 or more decayed teeth, as compared to--
``(i) 53 percent for children in that age range in the
continental United States; and
``(ii) 72.7 percent of other children in that age range in
the State; and
``(D) 21 percent of Native Hawaiian children aged 5
demonstrate signs of baby bottle tooth decay, which is
generally characterized as severe, progressive dental disease
in early childhood and associated with high rates of dental
disorders, as compared to 5 percent for children of that age
in the continental United States.
``(5) Life expectancy.--With respect to life expectancy--
``(A) Native Hawaiians have the lowest life expectancy of
all population groups in the State;
``(B) between 1910 and 1980, the life expectancy of Native
Hawaiians from birth has ranged from 5 to 10 years less than
that of the overall State population average;
``(C) the most recent tables for 1990 show Native Hawaiian
life expectancy at birth (74.27 years) to be approximately 5
years less than that of the total State population (78.85
years); and
``(D) except as provided in the life expectancy calculation
for 1920, Native Hawaiians have had the shortest life
expectancy of all major ethnic groups in the United States
since 1910.
``(6) Maternal and child health.--
``(A) In general.--With respect to maternal and child
health, in 2000--
``(i) 39 percent of all deaths of children under the age of
18 years in the State were Native Hawaiian;
``(ii) perinatal conditions accounted for 38 percent of all
Native Hawaiian deaths in that age group;
``(iii) Native Hawaiian infant mortality rates (9.8 per
1,000 live births) are--

``(I) the highest in the State; and

``(II) 151 percent higher than the rate for Caucasian
infants (3.9 per 1,000 live births); and

``(iv) Native Hawaiians have 1 of the highest infant
mortality rates in the United States, second only to the rate
for African Americans of 13.6 per 1,000 live births.
``(B) Prenatal care.--With respect to prenatal care--
``(i) as of 2005, Native Hawaiian women have the highest
prevalence (20.9 percent) of having had no prenatal care
during the first trimester of pregnancy, as compared to the 5
largest ethnic groups in the State;
``(ii) of the mothers in the State who received no prenatal
care in the first trimester, 33 percent were Native Hawaiian;
``(iii) in 2005, 41 percent of mothers with live births who
had not completed high school were Native Hawaiian; and
``(iv) in every region of the State, many Native Hawaiian
newborns begin life in a potentially hazardous circumstance,
far higher than any other racial group.
``(C) Births.--With respect to births, in 2005--
``(i) 45.2 percent of live births to Native Hawaiian
mothers were nonmarital, putting the affected infants at
higher risk of low birth weight and infant mortality;
``(ii) of the 2,934 live births to Native Hawaiian single
mothers, 9 percent were low birth weight (defined as a weight
of less than 2,500 grams); and
``(iii) 43.7 percent of all low birth-weight infants born
to single mothers in the State were Native Hawaiian.
``(D) Teen pregnancies.--With respect to births, in 2005--
``(i) Native Hawaiians had the highest rate of births to
mothers under the age of 18 years (5.8 percent), as compared
to the rate of 2.7 percent for the total population of the
State; and
``(ii) nearly 62 percent of all mothers in the State under
the age of 19 years were Native Hawaiian.
``(E) Fetal mortality.--With respect to fetal mortality, in
2005--
``(i) Native Hawaiians had the highest number of fetal
deaths in the State, as compared to Caucasian, Japanese, and
Filipino residents; and
``(ii)(I) 17.2 percent of all fetal deaths in the State
were associated with expectant Native Hawaiian mothers; and
``(II) 43.5 percent of those Native Hawaiian mothers were
under the age of 25 years.
``(7) Behavioral health.--
``(A) Alcohol and drug abuse.--With respect to alcohol and
drug abuse--
``(i)(I) in 2005, Native Hawaiians had the highest
prevalence of smoking of 27.9 percent, which is 64 percent
higher than the rate for the total population of the State
(17 percent); and
``(II) 53 percent of Native Hawaiians reported having
smoked at least 100 cigarettes in their lifetime, as compared
to 43.3 percent for the total population of the State;
``(ii) 33 percent of Native Hawaiians in grade 8 have
smoked cigarettes at least once in their lifetime, as
compared to--

``(I) 22.5 percent for all youth in the State; and
``(II) 28.4 percent of residents of the United States in
grade 8;

``(iii) Native Hawaiians have the highest prevalence of
binge drinking of 19.9 percent,

[[Page S78]]

which is 21 percent higher than the prevalence for the total
population of the State (16.5 percent);
``(iv) the prevalence of heavy drinking among Native
Hawaiians (10.1 percent) is 36 percent higher than the
prevalence for the total population of the State (7.4
percent);
``(v)(I) in 2003, 17.2 percent of Native Hawaiians in grade
6, 45.1 percent of Naive Hawaiians in grade 8, 68.9 percent
of Native Hawaiians in grade 10, and 78.1 percent of Native
Hawaiians in grade 12 reported using alcohol at least once in
their lifetime, as compared to 13.2, 36.8, 59.1, and 72.5
percent, respectively, of all adolescents in the State; and
``(II) 62.1 percent Native Hawaiians in grade 12 reported
being drunk at least once, which is 20 percent higher than
the percentage for all adolescents in the State (51.6
percent);
``(vi) on entering grade 12, 60 percent of Native Hawaiian
adolescents reported having used illicit drugs, including
inhalants, at least once in their lifetime, as compared to--

``(I) 46.9 percent of all adolescents in the State; and
``(II) 52.8 of adolescents in the United States;

``(vii) on entering grade 12, 58.2 percent of Native
Hawaiian adolescents reported having used marijuana at least
once, which is 31 percent higher than the rate of other
adolescents in the State (44.4 percent);
``(viii) in 2006, Native Hawaiians represented 40 percent
of the total admissions to substance abuse treatment programs
funded by the State Department of Health; and
``(ix) in 2003, Native Hawaiian adolescents reported the
highest prevalence for methamphetamine use in the State,
followed by Caucasian and Filipino adolescents.
``(B) Crime.--With respect to crime--
``(i) during the period of 1992 to 2002, Native Hawaiian
arrests for violent crimes decreased, but the rate of arrest
remained 38.3 percent higher than the rate of the total
population of the State;
``(ii) the robbery arrest rate in 2002 among Native
Hawaiian juveniles and adults was 59 percent higher (6.2
arrests per 100,000 residents) than the rate for the total
population of the State (3.9 arrests per 100,000 residents);
``(iii) in 2002--

``(I) Native Hawaiian men comprised between 35 percent and
43 percent of each security class in the State prison system;
``(II) Native Hawaiian women comprised between 38.1 percent
to 50.3 percent of each class of female prison inmates in the
State;
``(III) Native Hawaiians comprised 39.5 percent of the
total incarcerated population of the State; and
``(IV) Native Hawaiians comprised 40 percent of the total
sentenced felon population in the State, as compared to 25
percent for Caucasians, 12 percent for Filipinos, and 5
percent for Samoans;

``(iv) Native Hawaiians are overrepresented in the State
prison population;
``(v) of the 2,260 incarcerated Native Hawaiians, 70
percent are between 20 and 40 years of age; and
``(vi) based on anecdotal information, Native Hawaiians are
estimated to comprise between 60 percent and 70 percent of
all jail and prison inmates in the State.
``(C) Depression and suicide.--With respect to depression
and suicide--
``(i)(I) in 1999, the prevalence of depression among Native
Hawaiians was 15 percent, as compared to the national average
of approximately 10 percent; and
``(II) Native Hawaiian females had a higher prevalence of
depression (16.9 percent) than Native Hawaiian males (11.9
percent);
``(ii) in 2000--

``(I) Native Hawaiian adolescents had a significantly
higher suicide attempt rate (12.9 percent) than the rate for
other adolescents in the State (9.6 percent); and
``(II) 39 percent of all Native Hawaiian adult deaths were
due to suicide; and

``(iii) in 2006, the prevalence of obsessive compulsive
disorder among Native Hawaiian adolescent girls was 17.7
percent, as compared to a rate of--

``(I) 9.2 percent for Native Hawaiian boys and non-Hawaiian
girls; and
``(II) a national rate of 2 percent.

``(8) Overweightness and obesity.--With respect to
overweightness and obesity--
``(A) during the period of 2000 through 2003, Native
Hawaiian males and females had the highest age-adjusted
prevalence rates for obesity (40.5 and 32.5 percent,
respectively), which was--
``(i) with respect to individuals of full Native Hawaiian
ancestry, 145 percent higher than the rate for the total
population of the State (16.5 per 100,000); and
``(ii) with respect to individuals with less than 100
percent Native Hawaiian ancestry, 97 percent higher than the
total population of the State; and
``(B) for 2005, the prevalence of obesity among Native
Hawaiians was 43.1 percent, which was 119 percent higher than
the prevalence for the total population of the State (19.7
percent).
``(9) Family and child health.--With respect to family and
child health--
``(A) in 2000, the prevalence of single-parent families
with minor children was highest among Native Hawaiian
households, as compared to all households in the State (15.8
percent and 8.1 percent, respectively);
``(B) in 2002, nonmarital births accounted for 56.8 percent
of all live births among Native Hawaiians, as compared to 34
percent of all live births in the State;
``(C) the rate of confirmed child abuse and neglect among
Native Hawaiians has consistently been 3 to 4 times the rates
of other major ethnic groups, with a 3-year average of 63.9
cases in 2002, as compared to 12.8 cases for the total
population of the State;
``(D) spousal abuse or abuse of an intimate partner was
highest for Native Hawaiians, as compared to all cases of
abuse in the State (4.5 percent and 2.2 percent,
respectively); and
``(E)(i) \1/2\ of uninsured adults in the State have family
incomes below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; and
``(ii) Native Hawaiians residing in the State and the
continental United States have a higher rate of uninsurance
than other ethnic groups in the State and continental United
States (14.5 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively).
``(10) Health professions education and training.--With
respect to health professions education and training--
``(A) in 2003, adult Native Hawaiians had a higher rate of
high school completion, as compared to the total adult
population of the State (49.4 percent and 34.4 percent,
respectively);
``(B) Native Hawaiian physicians make up 4 percent of the
total physician workforce in the State; and
``(C) in 2004, Native Hawaiians comprised--
``(i) 11.25 percent of individuals who earned bachelor's
degrees;
``(ii) 6 percent of individuals who earned master's
degrees;
``(iii) 3 percent of individuals who earned doctorate
degrees;
``(iv) 7.9 percent of the credited student body at the
University of Hawai'i;
``(v) 0.4 percent of the instructional faculty at the
University of Hawai'i at Manoa; and
``(vi) 8.4 percent of the instructional faculty at the
University of Hawai'i Community Colleges.

``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

``In this Act:
``(1) Department.--The term `Department' means the
Department of Health and Human Services.
``(2) Disease prevention.--The term `disease prevention'
includes--
``(A) immunizations;
``(B) control of high blood pressure;
``(C) control of sexually transmittable diseases;
``(D) prevention and control of chronic diseases;
``(E) control of toxic agents;
``(F) occupational safety and health;
``(G) injury prevention;
``(H) fluoridation of water;
``(I) control of infectious agents; and
``(J) provision of mental health care.
``(3) Health promotion.--The term `health promotion'
includes--
``(A) pregnancy and infant care, including prevention of
fetal alcohol syndrome;
``(B) cessation of tobacco smoking;
``(C) reduction in the misuse of alcohol and harmful
illicit drugs;
``(D) improvement of nutrition;
``(E) improvement in physical fitness;
``(F) family planning;
``(G) control of stress;
``(H) reduction of major behavioral risk factors and
promotion of healthy lifestyle practices; and
``(I) integration of cultural approaches to health and
well-being (including traditional practices relating to the
atmosphere (lewa lani), land (`aina), water (wai), and ocean
(kai)).
``(4) Health service.--The term `health service' means--
``(A) service provided by a physician, physician's
assistant, nurse practitioner, nurse, dentist, or other
health professional;
``(B) a diagnostic laboratory or radiologic service;
``(C) a preventive health service (including a perinatal
service, well child service, family planning service,
nutrition service, home health service, sports medicine and
athletic training service, and, generally, any service
associated with enhanced health and wellness);
``(D) emergency medical service, including a service
provided by a first responder, emergency medical technician,
or mobile intensive care technician;
``(E) a transportation service required for adequate
patient care;
``(F) a preventive dental service;
``(G) a pharmaceutical and medicament service;
``(H) a mental health service, including a service provided
by a psychologist or social worker;
``(I) a genetic counseling service;
``(J) a health administration service, including a service
provided by a health program administrator;
``(K) a health research service, including a service
provided by an individual with an advanced degree in
medicine, nursing, psychology, social work, or any other
related health program;
``(L) an environmental health service, including a service
provided by an epidemiologist, public health official,
medical geographer, or medical anthropologist, or an
individual specializing in biological, chemical, or
environmental health determinants;
``(M) a primary care service that may lead to specialty or
tertiary care; and
``(N) a complementary healing practice, including a
practice performed by a traditional Native Hawaiian healer.

[[Page S79]]

``(5) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' means
any individual who is Kanaka Maoli (a descendant of the
aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised
sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State), as
evidenced by--
``(A) genealogical records;
``(B) kama`aina witness verification from Native Hawaiian
Kupuna (elders); or
``(C) birth records of the State or any other State or
territory of the United States.
``(6) Native hawaiian health care system.--The term `Native
Hawaiian health care system' means any of up to 8 entities in
the State that--
``(A) is organized under the laws of the State;
``(B) provides or arranges for the provision of health
services for Native Hawaiians in the State;
``(C) is a public or nonprofit private entity;
``(D) has Native Hawaiians significantly participating in
the planning, management, provision, monitoring, and
evaluation of health services;
``(E) addresses the health care needs of an island's Native
Hawaiian population; and
``(F) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi--
``(i) for the purpose of planning, conducting, or
administering programs, or portions of programs, authorized
by this Act for the benefit of Native Hawaiians; and
``(ii) as having the qualifications and the capacity to
provide the services and meet the requirements under--

``(I) the contract that each Native Hawaiian health care
system enters into with the Secretary under this Act; or
``(II) the grant each Native Hawaiian health care system
receives from the Secretary under this Act.

``(7) Native hawaiian health center.--The term `Native
Hawaiian Health Center' means any organization that is a
primary health care provider that--
``(A) has a governing board composed of individuals, at
least 50 percent of whom are Native Hawaiians;
``(B) has demonstrated cultural competency in a
predominantly Native Hawaiian community;
``(C) serves a patient population that--
``(i) is made up of individuals at least 50 percent of whom
are Native Hawaiian; or
``(ii) has not less than 2,500 Native Hawaiians as annual
users of services; and
``(D) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi as having met each
of the criteria described in subparagraphs (A) through (C).
``(8) Native hawaiian health task force.--The term `Native
Hawaiian Health Task Force' means a task force established by
the State Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations to
implement health and wellness strategies in Native Hawaiian
communities.
``(9) Native hawaiian organization.--The term `Native
Hawaiian organization' means any organization that--
``(A) serves the interests of Native Hawaiians; and
``(B)(i) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi for planning,
conducting, or administering programs authorized under this
Act for the benefit of Native Hawaiians; and
``(ii) is a public or nonprofit private entity.
``(10) Office of hawaiian affairs.--The term `Office of
Hawaiian Affairs' means the governmental entity that--
``(A) is established under article XII, sections 5 and 6,
of the Hawai'i State Constitution; and
``(B) charged with the responsibility to formulate policy
relating to the affairs of Native Hawaiians.
``(11) Papa ola lokahi.--
``(A) In general.--The term `Papa Ola Lokahi' means an
organization that--
``(i) is composed of public agencies and private
organizations focusing on improving the health status of
Native Hawaiians; and
``(ii) governed by a board the members of which may include
representation from--

``(I) E Ola Mau;
``(II) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs;
``(III) Alu Like, Inc.;
``(IV) the University of Hawaii;
``(V) the Hawai'i State Department of Health;
``(VI) the Native Hawaiian Health Task Force;
``(VII) the Hawai'i State Primary Care Association;
``(VIII) Ahahui O Na Kauka, the Native Hawaiian Physicians
Association;
``(IX) Ho`ola Lahui Hawaii, or a health care system serving
the islands of Kaua`i or Ni`ihau (which may be composed of as
many health care centers as are necessary to meet the health
care needs of the Native Hawaiians of those islands);
``(X) Ke Ola Mamo, or a health care system serving the
island of O`ahu (which may be composed of as many health care
centers as are necessary to meet the health care needs of the
Native Hawaiians of that island);
``(XI) Na Pu`uwai or a health care system serving the
islands of Moloka`i or Lana`i (which may be composed of as
many health care centers as are necessary to meet the health
care needs of the Native Hawaiians of those islands);
``(XII) Hui No Ke Ola Pono, or a health care system serving
the island of Maui (which may be composed of as many health
care centers as are necessary to meet the health care needs
of the Native Hawaiians of that island);
``(XIII) Hui Malama Ola Na `Oiwi, or a health care system
serving the island of Hawai'i (which may be composed of as
many health care centers as are necessary to meet the health
care needs of the Native Hawaiians of that island);
``(XIV) such other Native Hawaiian health care systems as
are certified and recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi in accordance
with this Act; and
``(XV) such other member organizations as the Board of Papa
Ola Lokahi shall admit from time to time, based on
satisfactory demonstration of a record of contribution to the
health and well-being of Native Hawaiians.

``(B) Exclusion.--The term `Papa Ola Lokahi' does not
include any organization described in subparagraph (A) for
which the Secretary has made a determination that the
organization has not developed a mission statement that
includes--
``(i) clearly-defined goals and objectives for the
contributions the organization will make to--

``(I) Native Hawaiian health care systems; and
``(II) the national policy described in section 4; and

``(ii) an action plan for carrying out those goals and
objectives.
``(12) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
``(13) State.--The term `State' means the State of Hawaii.
``(14) Traditional native hawaiian healer.--The term
`traditional Native Hawaiian healer' means a practitioner--
``(A) who--
``(i) is of Native Hawaiian ancestry; and
``(ii) has the knowledge, skills, and experience in direct
personal health care of individuals; and
``(B) the knowledge, skills, and experience of whom are
based on demonstrated learning of Native Hawaiian healing
practices acquired by--
``(i) direct practical association with Native Hawaiian
elders; and
``(ii) oral traditions transmitted from generation to
generation.

``SEC. 4. DECLARATION OF NATIONAL NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH
POLICY.

``(a) Declaration.--Congress declares that it is the policy
of the United States, in fulfillment of special
responsibilities and legal obligations of the United States
to the indigenous people of Hawai'i resulting from the unique
and historical relationship between the United States and the
indigenous people of Hawaii--
``(1) to raise the health status of Native Hawaiians to the
highest practicable health level; and
``(2) to provide Native Hawaiian health care programs with
all resources necessary to effectuate that policy.
``(b) Intent of Congress.--It is the intent of Congress
that--
``(1) health care programs having a demonstrated effect of
substantially reducing or eliminating the overrepresentation
of Native Hawaiians among those suffering from chronic and
acute disease and illness, and addressing the health needs of
Native Hawaiians (including perinatal, early child
development, and family-based health education needs), shall
be established and implemented; and
``(2) the United States--
``(A) raise the health status of Native Hawaiians by the
year 2010 to at least the levels described in the goals
contained within Healthy People 2010 (or successor
standards); and
``(B) incorporate within health programs in the United
States activities defined and identified by Kanaka Maoli,
such as--
``(i) incorporating and supporting the integration of
cultural approaches to health and well-being, including
programs using traditional practices relating to the
atmosphere (lewa lani), land ('aina), water (wai), or ocean
(kai);
``(ii) increasing the number of Native Hawaiian health and
allied-health providers who provide care to or have an impact
on the health status of Native Hawaiians;
``(iii) increasing the use of traditional Native Hawaiian
foods in--

``(I) the diets and dietary preferences of people,
including those of students; and
``(II) school feeding programs;

``(iv) identifying and instituting Native Hawaiian cultural
values and practices within the corporate cultures of
organizations and agencies providing health services to
Native Hawaiians;
``(v) facilitating the provision of Native Hawaiian healing
practices by Native Hawaiian healers for individuals desiring
that assistance;
``(vi) supporting training and education activities and
programs in traditional Native Hawaiian healing practices by
Native Hawaiian healers; and
``(vii) demonstrating the integration of health services
for Native Hawaiians, particularly those that integrate
mental, physical, and dental services in health care.
``(c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the President,
for inclusion in each report required to be submitted to
Congress under section 12, a report on the progress made
toward meeting the national policy described in this section.

``SEC. 5. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE MASTER PLAN FOR NATIVE
HAWAIIANS.

``(a) Development.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may make a grant to, or
enter into a contract with, Papa Ola Lokahi for the purpose
of coordinating, implementing, and updating a Native Hawaiian
comprehensive health care master plan that is designed--

[[Page S80]]

``(A) to promote comprehensive health promotion and disease
prevention services;
``(B) to maintain and improve the health status of Native
Hawaiians; and
``(C) to support community-based initiatives that are
reflective of holistic approaches to health.
``(2) Consultation.--
``(A) In general.--In carrying out this section, Papa Ola
Lokahi and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs shall consult with
representatives of--
``(i) the Native Hawaiian health care systems;
``(ii) the Native Hawaiian health centers; and
``(iii) the Native Hawaiian community.
``(B) Memoranda of understanding.--Papa Ola Lokahi and the
Office of Hawaiian Affairs may enter into memoranda of
understanding or agreement for the purpose of acquiring joint
funding, or for such other purposes as are necessary, to
accomplish the objectives of this section.
``(3) Health care financing study report.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date
of enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement
Reauthorization Act of 2009, Papa Ola Lokahi, in cooperation
with the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and other appropriate
agencies and organizations in the State (including the
Department of Health and the Department of Human Services of
the State) and appropriate Federal agencies (including the
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), shall submit to
Congress a report that describes the impact of Federal and
State health care financing mechanisms and policies on the
health and well-being of Native Hawaiians.
``(B) Components.--The report shall include--
``(i) information concerning the impact on Native Hawaiian
health and well-being of--

``(I) cultural competency;
``(II) risk assessment data;
``(III) eligibility requirements and exemptions; and
``(IV) reimbursement policies and capitation rates in
effect as of the date of the report for service providers;

``(ii) such other similar information as may be important
to improving the health status of Native Hawaiians, as that
information relates to health care financing (including
barriers to health care); and
``(iii) recommendations for submission to the Secretary,
for review and consultation with the Native Hawaiian
community.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out subsection (a).

``SEC. 6. FUNCTIONS OF PAPA OLA LOKAHI.

``(a) In General.--Papa Ola Lokahi--
``(1) shall be responsible for--
``(A) the coordination, implementation, and updating, as
appropriate, of the comprehensive health care master plan
under section 5;
``(B) the training and education of individuals providing
health services;
``(C) the identification of and research (including
behavioral, biomedical, epidemiological, and health service
research) into the diseases that are most prevalent among
Native Hawaiians; and
``(D) the development and maintenance of an institutional
review board for all research projects involving all aspects
of Native Hawaiian health, including behavioral, biomedical,
epidemiological, and health service research;
``(2) may receive special project funds (including research
endowments under section 736 of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 293)) made available for the purpose of--
``(A) research on the health status of Native Hawaiians; or
``(B) addressing the health care needs of Native Hawaiians;
and
``(3) shall serve as a clearinghouse for--
``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated
with the health status of Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the identification and research into diseases
affecting Native Hawaiians;
``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds,
research projects, and publications;
``(D) the collaboration of research in the area of Native
Hawaiian health; and
``(E) the timely dissemination of information pertinent to
the Native Hawaiian health care systems.
``(b) Consultation.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of each
other Federal agency shall--
``(A) consult with Papa Ola Lokahi; and
``(B) provide Papa Ola Lokahi and the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, at least once annually, an accounting of funds and
services provided by the Secretary to assist in accomplishing
the purposes described in section 4.
``(2) Components of accounting.--The accounting under
paragraph (1)(B) shall include an identification of--
``(A) the amount of funds expended explicitly for and
benefitting Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the number of Native Hawaiians affected by those
funds;
``(C) the collaborations between the applicable Federal
agency and Native Hawaiian groups and organizations in the
expenditure of those funds; and
``(D) the amount of funds used for--
``(i) Federal administrative purposes; and
``(ii) the provision of direct services to Native
Hawaiians.
``(c) Fiscal Allocation and Coordination of Programs and
Services.--
``(1) Recommendations.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall provide
annual recommendations to the Secretary with respect to the
allocation of all amounts made available under this Act.
``(2) Coordination.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall, to the maximum
extent practicable, coordinate and assist the health care
programs and services provided to Native Hawaiians under this
Act and other Federal laws.
``(3) Representation on commission.--The Secretary, in
consultation with Papa Ola Lokahi, shall make recommendations
for Native Hawaiian representation on the President's
Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
``(d) Technical Support.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall provide
statewide infrastructure to provide technical support and
coordination of training and technical assistance to--
``(1) the Native Hawaiian health care systems; and
``(2) the Native Hawaiian health centers.
``(e) Relationships With Other Agencies.--
``(1) Authority.--Papa Ola Lokahi may enter into agreements
or memoranda of understanding with relevant institutions,
agencies, or organizations that are capable of providing--
``(A) health-related resources or services to Native
Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian health care systems; or
``(B) resources or services for the implementation of the
national policy described in section 4.
``(2) Health care financing.--
``(A) Federal consultation.--
``(i) In general.--Before adopting any policy, rule, or
regulation that may affect the provision of services or
health insurance coverage for Native Hawaiians, a Federal
agency that provides health care financing and carries out
health care programs (including the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services) shall consult with representatives of--

``(I) the Native Hawaiian community;
``(II) Papa Ola Lokahi; and
``(III) organizations providing health care services to
Native Hawaiians in the State.

``(ii) Identification of effects.--Any consultation by a
Federal agency under clause (i) shall include an
identification of the effect of any policy, rule, or
regulation proposed by the Federal agency.
``(B) State consultation.--Before making any change in an
existing program or implementing any new program relating to
Native Hawaiian health, the State shall engage in meaningful
consultation with representatives of--
``(i) the Native Hawaiian community;
``(ii) Papa Ola Lokahi; and
``(iii) organizations providing health care services to
Native Hawaiians in the State.
``(C) Consultation on federal health insurance programs.--
``(i) In general.--The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, in
collaboration with Papa Ola Lokahi, may develop consultative,
contractual, or other arrangements, including memoranda of
understanding or agreement, with--

``(I) the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services;
``(II) the agency of the State that administers or
supervises the administration of the State plan or waiver
approved under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) for the payment of all
or a part of the health care services provided to Native
Hawaiians who are eligible for medical assistance under the
State plan or waiver; or
``(III) any other Federal agency providing full or partial
health insurance to Native Hawaiians.

``(ii) Contents of arrangements.--An arrangement under
clause (i) may address--

``(I) appropriate reimbursement for health care services,
including capitation rates and fee-for-service rates for
Native Hawaiians who are entitled to or eligible for
insurance;
``(II) the scope of services; or
``(III) other matters that would enable Native Hawaiians to
maximize health insurance benefits provided by Federal and
State health insurance programs.

``(3) Traditional healers.--
``(A) In general.--The provision of health services under
any program operated by the Department or another Federal
agency (including the Department of Veterans Affairs) may
include the services of--
``(i) traditional Native Hawaiian healers; or
``(ii) traditional healers providing traditional health
care practices (as those terms are defined in section 4 of
the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1603).
``(B) Exemption.--Services described in subparagraph (A)
shall be exempt from national accreditation reviews,
including reviews conducted by--
``(i) the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare
Organizations; and
``(ii) the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation
Facilities.

``SEC. 7. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE.

``(a) Comprehensive Health Promotion, Disease Prevention,
and Other Health Services.--
``(1) Grants and contracts.--The Secretary, in consultation
with Papa Ola Lokahi, may make grants to, or enter into

[[Page S81]]

contracts with 1 or more Native Hawaiian health care systems
for the purpose of providing comprehensive health promotion
and disease prevention services, as well as other health
services, to Native Hawaiians who desire and are committed to
bettering their own health.
``(2) Limitation on number of entities.--The Secretary may
make a grant to, or enter into a contract with, not more than
8 Native Hawaiian health care systems under this subsection
for any fiscal year.
``(b) Planning Grant or Contract.--In addition to grants
and contracts under subsection (a), the Secretary may make a
grant to, or enter into a contract with, Papa Ola Lokahi for
the purpose of planning Native Hawaiian health care systems
to serve the health needs of Native Hawaiian communities on
each of the islands of O`ahu, Moloka`i, Maui, Hawai`i,
Lana`i, Kaua`i, Kaho`lawe, and Ni`ihau in the State.
``(c) Health Services To Be Provided.--
``(1) In general.--Each recipient of funds under subsection
(a) may provide or arrange for--
``(A) outreach services to inform and assist Native
Hawaiians in accessing health services;
``(B) education in health promotion and disease prevention
for Native Hawaiians that, wherever practicable, is provided
by--
``(i) Native Hawaiian health care practitioners;
``(ii) community outreach workers;
``(iii) counselors;
``(iv) cultural educators; and
``(v) other disease prevention providers;
``(C) services of individuals providing health services;
``(D) collection of data relating to the prevention of
diseases and illnesses among Native Hawaiians; and
``(E) support of culturally appropriate activities that
enhance health and wellness, including land-based, water-
based, ocean-based, and spiritually-based projects and
programs.
``(2) Traditional healers.--The health care services
referred to in paragraph (1) that are provided under grants
or contracts under subsection (a) may be provided by
traditional Native Hawaiian healers, as appropriate.
``(d) Federal Tort Claims Act.--An individual who provides
a medical, dental, or other service referred to in subsection
(a)(1) for a Native Hawaiian health care system, including a
provider of a traditional Native Hawaiian healing service,
shall be--
``(1) treated as if the individual were a member of the
Public Health Service; and
``(2) subject to section 224 of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 233).
``(e) Site for Other Federal Payments.--
``(1) In general.--A Native Hawaiian health care system
that receives funds under subsection (a) may serve as a
Federal loan repayment facility.
``(2) Remission of payments.--A facility described in
paragraph (1) shall be designed to enable health and allied-
health professionals to remit payments with respect to loans
provided to the professionals under any Federal loan program.
``(f) Restriction on Use of Grant and Contract Funds.--The
Secretary shall not make a grant to, or enter into a contract
with, an entity under subsection (a) unless the entity agrees
that amounts received under the grant or contract will not,
directly or through contract, be expended--
``(1) for any service other than a service described in
subsection (c)(1);
``(2) to purchase or improve real property (other than
minor remodeling of existing improvements to real property);
or
``(3) to purchase major medical equipment.
``(g) Limitation on Charges for Services.--The Secretary
shall not make a grant to, or enter into a contract with, an
entity under subsection (a) unless the entity agrees that,
whether health services are provided directly or under a
contract--
``(1) any health service under the grant or contract will
be provided without regard to the ability of an individual
receiving the health service to pay for the health service;
and
``(2) the entity will impose for the delivery of such a
health service a charge that is--
``(A) made according to a schedule of charges that is made
available to the public; and
``(B) adjusted to reflect the income of the individual
involved.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) General grants.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (a) for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.
``(2) Planning grants.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (b) for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.
``(3) Health services.--There are authorized to be
appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out
subsection (c) for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2014.

``SEC. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE GRANT FOR PAPA OLA LOKAHI.

``(a) In General.--In addition to any other grant or
contract under this Act, the Secretary may make grants to, or
enter into contracts with, Papa Ola Lokahi for--
``(1) coordination, implementation, and updating (as
appropriate) of the comprehensive health care master plan
developed under section 5;
``(2) training and education for providers of health
services;
``(3) identification of and research (including behavioral,
biomedical, epidemiologic, and health service research) into
the diseases that are most prevalent among Native Hawaiians;
``(4) a clearinghouse function for--
``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated
with the health status of Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the identification and research into diseases
affecting Native Hawaiians; and
``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds,
research projects, and publications;
``(5) the establishment and maintenance of an institutional
review board for all health-related research involving Native
Hawaiians;
``(6) the coordination of the health care programs and
services provided to Native Hawaiians; and
``(7) the administration of special project funds.
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out subsection (a) for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2014.

``SEC. 9. ADMINISTRATION OF GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.

``(a) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in
any grant made or contract entered into under this Act such
terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary or
appropriate to ensure that the objectives of the grant or
contract are achieved.
``(b) Periodic Review.--The Secretary shall periodically
evaluate the performance of, and compliance with, grants and
contracts under this Act.
``(c) Administrative Requirements.--The Secretary shall not
make a grant or enter into a contract under this Act with an
entity unless the entity--
``(1) agrees to establish such procedures for fiscal
control and fund accounting as the Secretary determines are
necessary to ensure proper disbursement and accounting with
respect to the grant or contract;
``(2) agrees to ensure the confidentiality of records
maintained on individuals receiving health services under the
grant or contract;
``(3) with respect to providing health services to any
population of Native Hawaiians, a substantial portion of
which has a limited ability to speak the English language--
``(A) has developed and has the ability to carry out a
reasonable plan to provide health services under the grant or
contract through individuals who are able to communicate with
the population involved in the language and cultural context
that is most appropriate; and
``(B) has designated at least 1 individual who is fluent in
English and the appropriate language to assist in carrying
out the plan;
``(4) with respect to health services that are covered
under a program under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) (including any State
plan), or under any other Federal health insurance plan--
``(A) if the entity will provide under the grant or
contract any of those health services directly--
``(i) has entered into a participation agreement under each
such plan; and
``(ii) is qualified to receive payments under the plan; and
``(B) if the entity will provide under the grant or
contract any of those health services through a contract with
an organization--
``(i) ensures that the organization has entered into a
participation agreement under each such plan; and
``(ii) ensures that the organization is qualified to
receive payments under the plan; and
``(5) agrees to submit to the Secretary and Papa Ola Lokahi
an annual report that--
``(A) describes the use and costs of health services
provided under the grant or contract (including the average
cost of health services per user); and
``(B) provides such other information as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate.
``(d) Contract Evaluation.--
``(1) Determination of noncompliance.--If, as a result of
evaluations conducted by the Secretary, the Secretary
determines that an entity has not complied with or
satisfactorily performed a contract entered into under
section 7, the Secretary shall, before renewing the
contract--
``(A) attempt to resolve the areas of noncompliance or
unsatisfactory performance; and
``(B) modify the contract to prevent future occurrences of
the noncompliance or unsatisfactory performance.
``(2) Nonrenewal.--If the Secretary determines that the
noncompliance or unsatisfactory performance described in
paragraph (1) with respect to an entity cannot be resolved
and prevented in the future, the Secretary--
``(A) shall not renew the contract with the entity; and
``(B) may enter into a contract under section 7 with
another entity referred to in section 7(a)(3) that provides
services to the same population of Native Hawaiians served by
the entity the contract with which was not renewed by reason
of this paragraph.
``(3) Consideration of results.--In determining whether to
renew a contract entered into with an entity under this Act,
the Secretary shall consider the results of the evaluations
conducted under this section.
``(4) Application of federal laws.--Each contract entered
into by the Secretary under

[[Page S82]]

this Act shall be in accordance with all Federal contracting
laws (including regulations), except that, in the discretion
of the Secretary, such a contract may--
``(A) be negotiated without advertising; and
``(B) be exempted from subchapter III of chapter 31, United
States Code.
``(5) Payments.--A payment made under any contract entered
into under this Act--
``(A) may be made--
``(i) in advance;
``(ii) by means of reimbursement; or
``(iii) in installments; and
``(B) shall be made on such conditions as the Secretary
determines to be necessary to carry out this Act.
``(e) Report.--
``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year during which an
entity receives or expends funds under a grant or contract
under this Act, the entity shall submit to the Secretary and
to Papa Ola Lokahi an annual report that describes--
``(A) the activities conducted by the entity under the
grant or contract;
``(B) the amounts and purposes for which Federal funds were
expended; and
``(C) such other information as the Secretary may request.
``(2) Audits.--The reports and records of any entity
concerning any grant or contract under this Act shall be
subject to audit by--
``(A) the Secretary;
``(B) the Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services; and
``(C) the Comptroller General of the United States.
``(f) Annual Private Audit.--The Secretary shall allow as a
cost of any grant made or contract entered into under this
Act the cost of an annual private audit conducted by a
certified public accountant to carry out this section.

``SEC. 10. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary may enter into an
agreement with Papa Ola Lokahi or any of the Native Hawaiian
health care systems for the assignment of personnel of the
Department of Health and Human Services with relevant
expertise for the purpose of--
``(1) conducting research; or
``(2) providing comprehensive health promotion and disease
prevention services and health services to Native Hawaiians.
``(b) Applicable Federal Personnel Provisions.--Any
assignment of personnel made by the Secretary under any
agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall be treated
as an assignment of Federal personnel to a local government
that is made in accordance with subchapter VI of chapter 33
of title 5, United States Code.

``SEC. 11. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS AND
FELLOWSHIPS.

``(a) Eligibility.--Subject to the availability of amounts
appropriated under subsection (c), the Secretary shall
provide to Papa Ola Lokahi, through a direct grant or a
cooperative agreement, funds for the purpose of providing
scholarship and fellowship assistance, counseling, and
placement service assistance to students who are Native
Hawaiians.
``(b) Priority.--A priority for scholarships under
subsection (a) may be provided to employees of--
``(1) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Systems; and
``(2) the Native Hawaiian Health Centers.
``(c) Terms and Conditions.--
``(1) Scholarship assistance.--
``(A) In general.--The scholarship assistance under
subsection (a) shall be provided in accordance with
subparagraphs (B) through (G).
``(B) Need.--The provision of scholarships in each type of
health profession training shall correspond to the need for
each type of health professional to serve the Native Hawaiian
community in providing health services, as identified by Papa
Ola Lokahi.
``(C) Eligible applicants.--To the maximum extent
practicable, the Secretary shall select scholarship
recipients from a list of eligible applicants submitted by
Papa Ola Lokahi.
``(D) Obligated service requirement.--
``(i) In general.--An obligated service requirement for
each scholarship recipient (except for a recipient receiving
assistance under paragraph (2)) shall be fulfilled through
service, in order of priority, in--

``(I) any of the Native Hawaiian health care systems;
``(II) any of the Native Hawaiian health centers;
``(III) 1 or more health professions shortage areas,
medically underserved areas, or geographic areas or
facilities similarly designated by the Public Health Service
in the State;
``(IV) a Native Hawaiian organization that serves a
geographical area, facility, or organization that serves a
significant Native Hawaiian population;
``(V) any public agency or nonprofit organization providing
services to Native Hawaiians; or
``(VI) any of the uniformed services of the United States.

``(ii) Assignment.--The placement service for a scholarship
shall assign each Native Hawaiian scholarship recipient to 1
or more appropriate sites for service in accordance with
clause (i).
``(E) Counseling, retention, and support services.--The
provision of academic and personal counseling, retention and
other support services--
``(i) shall not be limited to scholarship recipients under
this section; and
``(ii) shall be made available to recipients of other
scholarship and financial aid programs enrolled in
appropriate health professions training programs.
``(F) Financial assistance.--After consultation with Papa
Ola Lokahi, financial assistance may be provided to a
scholarship recipient during the period that the recipient is
fulfilling the service requirement of the recipient in any
of--
``(i) the Native Hawaiian health care systems; or
``(ii) the Native Hawaiians health centers.
``(G) Distance learning recipients.--A scholarship may be
provided to a Native Hawaiian who is enrolled in an
appropriate distance learning program offered by an
accredited educational institution.
``(2) Fellowships.--
``(A) In general.--Papa Ola Lokahi may provide financial
assistance in the form of a fellowship to a Native Hawaiian
health professional who is--
``(i) a Native Hawaiian community health representative,
outreach worker, or health program administrator in a
professional training program;
``(ii) a Native Hawaiian providing health services; or
``(iii) a Native Hawaiian enrolled in a certificated
program provided by traditional Native Hawaiian healers in
any of the traditional Native Hawaiian healing practices
(including lomi-lomi, la`au lapa`au, and ho`oponopono).
``(B) Types of assistance.--Assistance under subparagraph
(A) may include a stipend for, or reimbursement for costs
associated with, participation in a program described in that
paragraph.
``(3) Rights and benefits.--An individual who is a health
professional designated in section 338A of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) who receives a scholarship under
this subsection while fulfilling a service requirement under
that Act shall retain the same rights and benefits as members
of the National Health Service Corps during the period of
service.
``(4) No inclusion of assistance in gross income.--
Financial assistance provided under this section shall be
considered to be qualified scholarships for the purpose of
section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to
carry out subsections (a) and (c)(2) for each of fiscal years
2009 through 2014.

``SEC. 12. REPORT.

``For each fiscal year, the President shall, at the time at
which the budget of the United States is submitted under
section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, submit to
Congress a report on the progress made in meeting the
purposes of this Act, including--
``(1) a review of programs established or assisted in
accordance with this Act; and
``(2) an assessment of and recommendations for additional
programs or additional assistance necessary to provide, at a
minimum, health services to Native Hawaiians, and ensure a
health status for Native Hawaiians, that are at a parity with
the health services available to, and the health status of,
the general population.

``SEC. 13. USE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES AND SOURCES
OF SUPPLY.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall permit an
organization that enters into a contract or receives grant
under this Act to use in carrying out projects or activities
under the contract or grant all existing facilities under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary (including all equipment of the
facilities), in accordance with such terms and conditions as
may be agreed on for the use and maintenance of the
facilities or equipment.
``(b) Donation of Property.--The Secretary may donate to an
organization that enters into a contract or receives grant
under this Act, for use in carrying out a project or activity
under the contract or grant, any personal or real property
determined to be in excess of the needs of the Department or
the General Services Administration.
``(c) Acquisition of Surplus Property.--The Secretary may
acquire excess or surplus Federal Government personal or real
property for donation to an organization under subsection (b)
if the Secretary determines that the property is appropriate
for use by the organization for the purpose for which a
contract entered into or grant received by the organization
is authorized under this Act.

``SEC. 14. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE.

``(a) Authority and Areas of Interest.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with Papa
Ola Lokahi, may allocate amounts made available under this
Act, or any other Act, to carry out Native Hawaiian
demonstration projects of national significance.
``(2) Areas of interest.--A demonstration project described
in paragraph (1) may relate to such areas of interest as--
``(A) the development of a centralized database and
information system relating to the health care status, health
care needs, and wellness of Native Hawaiians;
``(B) the education of health professionals, and other
individuals in institutions of higher learning, in health and
allied health programs in healing practices, including Native
Hawaiian healing practices;

[[Page S83]]

``(C) the integration of Western medicine with
complementary healing practices, including traditional Native
Hawaiian healing practices;
``(D) the use of telehealth and telecommunications in--
``(i) chronic and infectious disease management; and
``(ii) health promotion and disease prevention;
``(E) the development of appropriate models of health care
for Native Hawaiians and other indigenous people, including--
``(i) the provision of culturally competent health
services;
``(ii) related activities focusing on wellness concepts;
``(iii) the development of appropriate kupuna care
programs; and
``(iv) the development of financial mechanisms and
collaborative relationships leading to universal access to
health care; and
``(F) the establishment of--
``(i) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Nursing at
the University of Hawai'i at Hilo;
``(ii) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Mental
Health at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa;
``(iii) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Maternal
Health and Nutrition at the Waimanalo Health Center;
``(iv) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for Research,
Training, Integrated Medicine at Molokai General Hospital;
and
``(v) a Native Hawaiian Center of Excellence for
Complementary Health and Health Education and Training at the
Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center.
``(3) Centers of excellence.--Papa Ola Lokahi, and any
centers established under paragraph (2)(F), shall be
considered to be qualified as Centers of Excellence under
sections 485F and 903(b)(2)(A) of the Public Health Service
Act (42 U.S.C. 287c-32, 299a-1).
``(b) Nonreduction in Other Funding.--The allocation of
funds for demonstration projects under subsection (a) shall
not result in any reduction in funds required by the Native
Hawaiian health care systems, the Native Hawaiian Health
Centers, the Native Hawaiian Health Scholarship Program, or
Papa Ola Lokahi to carry out the respective responsibilities
of those entities under this Act.

``SEC. 15. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

``Nothing in this Act restricts the authority of the State
to require licensing of, and issue licenses to, health
practitioners.

``SEC. 16. COMPLIANCE WITH BUDGET ACT.

``Any new spending authority described in subparagraph (A)
or (B) of section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 651(c)(2)) that is provided under this Act
shall be effective for any fiscal year only to such extent or
in such amounts as are provided for in Acts of appropriation.

``SEC. 17. SEVERABILITY.

``If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
such provision to any person or circumstance, is determined
by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the
remainder of this Act, and the application of the provision
to a person or circumstance other than that to which the
provision is held invalid, shall not be affected by that
holding.''.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 77. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to
provide for equal coverage of mental health services under the State
Children's Health Insurance Program; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my great hope that Congress will move
this year to see that the successful, bipartisan State Children's
Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, is allowed the opportunity to fulfill
its promise to the low-income children of this country. For over 11
years it has provided, along with Medicaid, the type of meaningful and
affordable health insurance coverage that each and every American child
deserves. Yet there is much work to be done to improve this program,
and the reauthorization of SCHIP gives us the opportunity to expand
these successful programs to many of the nine million uninsured
children in the country today, starting with the 6 million that are
already eligible for public programs but not yet enrolled.
While expanding coverage to the uninsured is our top priority, it is
equally important to ensure that the types of benefits offered to our
Nation's children are quality services that are available when needed.
Unfortunately, when it comes to mental health coverage, that is too
often not the case today. Therefore, I am introducing today, along with
Senator Snowe, the Children's Mental Health Parity Act which provides
for equal coverage of mental health care for all children enrolled in
the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, SCHIP. This was passed as
part of the SCHIP reauthorization last year, but unfortunately the bill
was vetoed by President Bush.
I am encouraged by the passage of the Paul Wellstone and Pete
Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in October 2008.
It is now time to extend the same parity in mental health coverage to
our children that we give to adults. Mental illness is a critical
problem for the young people in this country today. The numbers are
startling. Mental disorders affect about one in five American children
and up to 9 percent of kids experience serious emotional disturbances
that severely impact their functioning. Low-income children, those the
SCHIP program is designed to cover, have the highest rates of mental
health problems.
Yet the sad reality is that an estimated \2/3\ of all young people
struggling with mental health disorders do not receive the care they
need. We are failing our children when we do not provide appropriate
treatment of mental health disorders. The consequences of this failure
could not be more severe. Without early and effective intervention,
affected children are less likely to do well in school and more likely
to have compromised employment and earnings opportunities. Moreover,
untreated mental illness may increase a child's risk of coming into
contact with the juvenile justice system. Finally, children with mental
disorders are at a much higher risk for suicide.
Unfortunately, many states' SCHIP programs are not providing the type
of mental health care coverage that our most vulnerable children
deserve. Many States impose discriminatory limits on mental health care
coverage that do not apply to medical and surgical care. These can
include caps on coverage of inpatient days and outpatient visits, as
well as cost and testing restrictions that impair the ability of our
physicians to make the best judgments for our kids.
The Children's Mental Health Parity Act would prohibit discriminatory
limits on mental health care in SCHIP plans by directing that any
financial requirements or treatment limitations that apply to mental
health or substance abuse services must be no more restrictive than the
financial requirements or treatment limits that apply to other medical
services. This bill would also eliminate a harmful provision in current
law that authorizes states to lower the amount of mental health
coverage they provide to children to just 75 percent of the coverage
provided in other health care plans used by states.
Many of the leading advocacy groups have endorsed the Children's
Mental Health Parity Act, including Mental Health America, the American
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the Bazelon Center for Mental
Health Law, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, The National Association for
Children's Behavioral Health, the National Association of Psychiatric
Health Systems, and the National Council for Community Behavioral
Health care.
America's kids who are covered through SCHIP should be guaranteed
that the mental health benefits they receive are just as comprehensive
as those for medical and surgical care. It is no less important to care
for our kids' mental health, and this unfair and unwise disparity
should no longer be acceptable. As we debate many important features of
the SCHIP program during reauthorization, I look forward to working
with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that this important,
bipartisan measure receives the support that it deserves.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S.78. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a
full exclusion for gain from certain small business stocks; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our economy is in the midst of the worst
economic downturn since since the Great Depression. We all realize that
small businesses are the backbone of our economy. During these
difficult times, many small businesses are having trouble accessing
credit which leads to a decline in job creation and innovation.
Many of our most successful corporations started as small businesses,
including AOL, Apple Computer, Compac Computer, Datastream, Evergreen
Solar, Intel Corporations, and Sun Microsystems. As you can see from
this partial list, many of these companies played an integral role in
making the Internet a reality.

[[Page S84]]

Today, Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Invest in Small
Business Act of 2009 to encourage private investment in small
businesses by making changes to the existing partial exclusion for gain
from certain small business stock.
Investing in small businesses is essential to turning around the
economy. Not only will investment in small business spur job creation.
it will lead to new technological breakthroughs. We are at an integral
juncture in developing technology to address global climate change. I
believe that small business will repeat the role it played at the
vanguard of the computer revolution--by leading the Nation in
developing the technologies to substantially reduce carbon emissions.
Small businesses already are at the forefront of these industries, and
we need to do everything we can to encourage investment in small
businesses.
Back in 1993, I worked with Senator Bumpers to enact legislation to
provide a 50 percent exclusion for gain for individuals from the sale
of certain small business stock that is held for 5 years. This
provision would provide a 50 percent exclusion for gain for individuals
from the sale of certain small business stock that is held for 5 years.
Since the enactment of this provision, the capital gains rate has been
lowered twice without any changes to the exclusion. Due to the lower
capital rates, this provision no longer provides a strong incentive for
investment in small businesses.
The Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 makes several changes to the
existing provision. This legislation increases the exclusion amount
from 50 percent to 100 percent and decreases the holding period from 5
to 4 years. This bill would allow corporations to benefit from the
provision as long as they own less than 25 percent of the small
business corporation stock.
Currently, the exclusion is treated as a preference item for
calculating the alternative minimum tax, AMT. The Invest in Small
Business Act of 2009 would repeal the exclusion as an AMT preference
item.
The Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 will provide an effective
tax rate of 0 percent for the gain from the sale of certain small
businesses. This lower capital gains rate will encourage investment in
small businesses. In addition, the changes made by the Invest in Small
Business Act of 2009 will make more taxpayers eligible for this
provision.
I urge my colleagues to support the Invest in Small Business Act of
2009 which strengthens an existing tax incentive to provide an
appropriate incentive to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship.
______

By Mr. KERRY:
S. 79. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to establish a Federal
Reinsurance Program for Catastrophic Health Care Costs; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my home State of Massachusetts is setting
an example for the rest of the country by taking bold steps to provide
quality health coverage for everyone. Now it is time for Washington to
do the same by bringing meaningful, affordable healthcare to the
uninsured, in Massachusetts and across America.
In Massachusetts the cost of health care is a major obstacle to the
overall goal of universal coverage. The problem of the uninsured can't
be solved unless the issue of skyrocketing health costs to families and
businesses is also tackled. And fully reforming the healthcare system
requires that the Federal Government begin shouldering some of the
burden to help alleviate costs.
Healthcare costs are highly concentrated in this country. The very
few who suffer from catastrophic illness or injury drive costs up for
everyone. One percent of patients account for 25 percent of healthcare
costs, and 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of costs. To
make healthcare more affordable, we must find a better way to share the
immense burden of insuring the chronically ill and seriously injured.
Part of the reason that businesses and health plans today fail to
cover their workers is an aversion to risk. Patients who are
catastrophically ill or injured often face the tragic combination of
failing health and financial peril. But there's a way to combat these
costs.
Congress should make employers and healthcare plans an offer they
can't refuse. It's called ``reinsurance.'' Reinsurance provides a
backstop for the high costs of healthcare. The Federal Government will
reimburse a percentage of the highest cost cases if employers agree to
offer comprehensive health insurance benefits to all full time
employees, including preventative care and health promotion benefits
that are proven to make care affordable. This will result in lower
costs and lower premiums for both employers and employees. If the
Federal Government can help small and large businesses bear the burden
of cost in the most expensive cases, we'll dramatically improve the
access to health care for everyone.
That is why I am introducing the Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers
Reinsurance Act, to make the federal government a partner in helping
businesses with the heavy financial burden of those catastrophic cases.
Specifically, this legislation is designed to assist those catastrophic
cases that cost more than $50,000 in a single year. Healthy Businesses,
Healthy Workers will protect business owners from skyrocketing
premiums, and provide more working families affordable, quality
healthcare. With reinsurance, health insurance premiums for all of us
will go down, by up to approximately 10 percent under this plan. This
plan does have a cost associated with it, but the benefits will
outweigh the costs. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year
on inefficient and wasteful health expenditures. We need to make sure
that these funds are being spent wisely to ensure that we can lower
health care costs and improve coverage.
I believe that we must act now to address the health care crisis in
America, taking steps that create real change and address both access
to care and the cost of care. There is a growing bipartisan consensus
that the Federal Government has a responsibility to help the
catastrophically ill. As we take the next steps toward alleviating our
nation's health care crisis, a commonsense partnership between
employers, families, and the government to share the costs of the
sickest among us will lay the groundwork for achieving our ultimate
goal: meaningful health care coverage for every single American. I ask
all my colleagues to support this legislation.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 111. A bill for the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief
legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Joseph Gabra
and his wife, Sharon Kamel, Egyptian nationals currently living with
their children in Camarillo, California.
Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel entered the United States legally on
November 1, 1998, on tourist visas. They immediately filed for
political asylum based on religious persecution.
The couple fled Egypt because they had been targeted for their active
involvement in the Coptic Christian Church in Egypt. Mr. Gabra was
employed from 1990-1998 by the Coptic Catholic Diocese Church in El-
Fayoum as an accountant and ``project coordinator'' in the Office of
Human and Social Elevation. He was responsible for building community
facilities such as religious schools, among other things.
His wife, Sharon Kamel, was employed as the Director for Training in
the Human Resources Department of the Coptic Church.
Both Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel had paid full-time positions with the
Coptic Church.
Unfortunately, they and their families suffered abuse because of
their commitment to their church. Mr. Gabra was repeatedly jailed by
Egyptian authorities because of his work for the church. In addition,
Ms. Kamel's cousin was murdered and her brother's business was fire-
bombed.
When Ms. Kamel became pregnant with their first child, the family was
warned by a member of the Muslim brotherhood that if they did not raise
their child as a Muslim, the child would be kidnapped and taken from
them.
Frightened by these threats, the young family sought refuge in the
United States. Unfortunately, when

[[Page S85]]

they sought asylum here, Mr. Gabra, who has a speech impediment, had
difficulty communicating his fear of persecution to the immigration
judge.
The judge denied their petition, telling the family that he did not
see why they could not just move to another city in Egypt to avoid the
abuse they were suffering. Since the time that they were denied asylum,
Ms. Kamel's brother, who lived in the same town and suffered similar
abuse, was granted asylum.
I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe
that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States
citizen children would endure immense and unfair hardship.
First, in the ten years that Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have lived here,
they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal
channels. They left behind employment in Egypt and came to the United
States on a lawful visa. Once here, they immediately notified
authorities of their intent to seek asylum here. They have played by
the rules and followed our laws.
In addition, during those ten years, the couple has had four U.S.
citizen children who do not speak Arabic and are unfamiliar with
Egyptian culture. If the family is deported, the children would have to
acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life.
Jessica, age 10, is the Gabras' oldest child, and in the Gifted and
Talented Education program in Ventura County. Rebecca, age 9, and
Rafael, age 8, are old enough to understand that they would be leaving
their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. Veronica,
the Gabra's youngest child, is just 3 years old.
More troubling is the very real possibility that if sent to Egypt,
these four American children would suffer discrimination and
persecution because of their religion, just as the rest of their family
reports.
Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have made a positive life for themselves and
their family in the United States. Both have earned college degrees in
Egypt and once in the United States, Mr. Gabra passed the Certified
Public Accountant Examination on August 4, 2003. Since arriving here,
Mr. Gabra has consistently worked to support his family.
The positive impact they have made on their community is highlighted
by the fact that I received a letter of support on their behalf signed
by 160 members of their church and community. From everything I have
learned about the family, we can expect that they will continue to
contribute to their community in productive ways.
Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to
support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon
Kamel.
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. 111

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel shall
each be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and
remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible for
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an
application for such adjustment of status.
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the application for adjustment of status is
filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of permanent resident status to Joseph Gabra and Sharon
Kamel, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper
officer to reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of Joseph
Gabra and Sharon Kamel under section 203(a) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)), or, if
applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made
available to natives to the country of birth of Joseph Gabra
and Sharon Kamel under section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C.
1152(e)).
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 112. A bill to treat certain hospital support organizations as
qualified organizations for purposes of determining acquisition
indebtedness; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the legislation I have reintroduced will
extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the
existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to
support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools,
universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our
teaching hospitals require similar support.
As a result, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to
affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment.
These private hospitals typically have no mandate for community
service. In contrast, nonprofit hospitals must fulfill a community
service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide
increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain
skilled staffing resulting in closures of nonprofit hospitals due to
this financial strain.
The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. Non-profit
hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the
United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not
profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma
is especially costly.
Despite their financial problem the Nation's nonprofit hospitals
strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December
2006 issue of Archives of International Medicine had surveyed
hospitals' quality of care in four areas of treatment. It found that
nonprofit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. It
also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in
treatment and diagnosis. It said that investment in technology and
staffing leads to better care. And it recommended that alternative
payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these
improvements.
The success and financial constraints of nonprofit teaching hospitals
is evident in work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 147-
year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit
hospital in Hawaii. It serves as the primary clinical teaching facility
for the University of Hawaii's medical residency programs in medicine,
general surgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology,
and psychiatry. It conducts educational and training programs for
nurses and allied health personnel. It operates the only trauma unit as
well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains
clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs for native Hawaiians, and a
small hospital on a rural, economically depressed island. Its medical
reference library is the largest in the State. Not the least, it
annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services.
To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems,
as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income
from its endowment.
In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges,
universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real
estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code
these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without
triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.
If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could
borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being
part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support
organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition.
Nonprofit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs
as universities, schools, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule
should be extended to teaching hospitals.
My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching
hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment
income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted
than current law for schools, universities and pension trusts. Under
safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a
support organization for a teaching hospital can not buy and develop
land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the
organization endowment. The staff's revenue

[[Page S86]]

estimates show that the provision with its general application will
help a number of teaching hospitals.
The U.S. Senate several times has acted favorably on this proposal.
The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836, the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill,
however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus
on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from
the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the
provision in H.R. 7, the CARE Act of 2002, and in S. 476, the CARE Act
of 2003 which the Senate passed. In a previous Congress' S. 6, the
Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the
Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.
As the Senate Finance Committee's recent hearings show, substantial
health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is
time for the Congress to assist the Nation's teaching hospitals in
their charitable, educational service.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill by
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 112

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN HOSPITAL SUPPORT
ORGANIZATIONS AS QUALIFIED ORGANIZATIONS FOR
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING ACQUISITION
INDEBTEDNESS.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 514(c)(9) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to real property
acquired by a qualified organization) is amended by striking
``or'' at the end of clause (iii), by striking the period at
the end of clause (iv) and inserting ``; or'', and by adding
at the end the following new clause:
``(v) a qualified hospital support organization (as defined
in subparagraph (I)).''.
(b) Qualified Hospital Support Organizations.--Paragraph
(9) of section 514(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(I) Qualified hospital support organizations.--For
purposes of subparagraph (C)(iv), the term `qualified
hospital support organization' means, with respect to any
eligible indebtedness (including any qualified refinancing of
such eligible indebtedness), a support organization (as
defined in section 509(a)(3)) which supports a hospital
described in section 119(d)(4)(B) and with respect to which--
``(i) more than half of its assets (by value) at any time
since its organization--

``(I) were acquired, directly or indirectly, by
testamentary gift or devise, and
``(II) consisted of real property, and

``(ii) the fair market value of the organization's real
estate acquired, directly or indirectly, by gift or devise,
exceeded 25 percent of the fair market value of all
investment assets held by the organization immediately prior
to the time that the eligible indebtedness was incurred.

For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `eligible
indebtedness' means indebtedness secured by real property
acquired by the organization, directly or indirectly, by gift
or devise, the proceeds of which are used exclusively to
acquire any leasehold interest in such real property or for
improvements on, or repairs to, such real property. A
determination under clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph
shall be made each time such an eligible indebtedness (or the
qualified refinancing of such an eligible indebtedness) is
incurred. For purposes of this subparagraph, a refinancing of
such an eligible indebtedness shall be considered qualified
if such refinancing does not exceed the amount of the
refinanced eligible indebtedness immediately before the
refinancing.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to indebtedness incurred on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 113. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide
health care practitioners in rural areas with training in preventive
health care, including both physical and mental care, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today, again, to introduce the
Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act, a bill that responds to the
dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease
prevention programs. Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas
and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care.
As many as 21 million of the 3 million people living in underserved
rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in
areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access,
such as geography, distance, lack of transportation, and lack of
knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural
populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the
access to medical care.
Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the
result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without
vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive
immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries
occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early
symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and
often develop into full-blown disorders.
An Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for
Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research,''
highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The
training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to
meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health
care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.
Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers
must be encouraged. Through such training, rural health care providers
can build a strong educational foundation from the behavioral,
biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team
prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both
health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation
between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their
services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall
health of rural communities.
The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act would implement the
risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on
the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions
for those risk factors. The human suffering caused by poor health is
immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities,
families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to
reduce this suffering, the potential psychological and financial
savings are enormous.
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. 113

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 ``Rural Preventive Health Care
Training Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

Part D of title VII of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 294 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 754
the following:

``SEC. 754A. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and
enter into contracts with, eligible applicants to enable such
applicants to provide preventive health care training, in
accordance with subsection (c), to health care practitioners
practicing in rural areas. Such training shall, to the extent
practicable, include training in health care to prevent both
physical and mental disorders before the initial occurrence
of such disorders. In carrying out this subsection, the
Secretary shall encourage, but may not require, the use of
interdisciplinary training project applications.
``(b) Limitation.--To be eligible to receive training using
assistance provided under subsection (a), a health care
practitioner shall be determined by the eligible applicant
involved to be practicing, or desiring to practice, in a
rural area.
``(c) Use of Assistance.--Amounts received under a grant
made or contract entered into under this section shall be
used--
``(1) to provide student stipends to individuals attending
rural community colleges or other institutions that service
predominantly rural communities, for the purpose of enabling
the individuals to receive preventive health care training;
``(2) to increase staff support at rural community colleges
or other institutions that service predominantly rural
communities to facilitate the provision of preventive health
care training;
``(3) to provide training in appropriate research and
program evaluation skills in rural communities;
``(4) to create and implement innovative programs and
curricula with a specific prevention component; and

[[Page S87]]

``(5) for other purposes as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
$5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013.''.
______

By Mr. INOUYE:
S. 114. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise, again, today to reintroduce
legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the
establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research. Social
workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout
America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering
from various forms of abuse and neglect. The purpose of this center is
to support and disseminate information about the basic and clinical
social work research and training, with emphasis on service to
underserved and rural populations.
While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work
research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other
Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of
these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and
opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of
a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral
and mental health care outcomes for our Nation's children, families,
the elderly, and others.
In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-
effective, research-based quality health care to all Americans, we must
recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to
health care delivery and central role that the Center for Social Work
can provide in facilitating their work.
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. 114

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 Center for Social
Work Research Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) social workers focus on the improvement of individual
and family functioning and the creation of effective health
and mental health prevention and treatment interventions in
order for individuals to become more productive members of
society;
(2) social workers provide front line prevention and
treatment services in the areas of school violence, aging,
teen pregnancy, child abuse, domestic violence, juvenile
crime, and substance abuse, particularly in rural and
underserved communities; and
(3) social workers are in a unique position to provide
valuable research information on these complex social
concerns, taking into account a wide range of social,
medical, economic and community influences from an
interdisciplinary, family-centered and community-based
approach.

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CENTER FOR SOCIAL WORK
RESEARCH.

(a) In General.--Section 401(a) of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 281(a)) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(26) The National Center for Social Work Research.''.
(b) Establishment.--Part E of title IV of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``Subpart 7--National Center for Social Work Research

``SEC. 485I. PURPOSE OF CENTER.

``The general purpose of the National Center for Social
Work Research (referred to in this subpart as the `Center')
is the conduct and support of, and dissemination of targeted
research concerning social work methods and outcomes related
to problems of significant social concern. The Center shall--
``(1) promote research and training that is designed to
inform social work practices, thus increasing the knowledge
base which promotes a healthier America; and
``(2) provide policymakers with empirically-based research
information to enable such policymakers to better understand
complex social issues and make informed funding decisions
about service effectiveness and cost efficiency.

``SEC. 485J. SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES.

``(a) In General.--To carry out the purpose described in
section 485I, the Director of the Center may provide research
training and instruction and establish, in the Center and in
other nonprofit institutions, research traineeships and
fellowships in the study and investigation of the prevention
of disease, health promotion, the association of
socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, age and geographical
location and health, the social work care of individuals
with, and families of individuals with, acute and chronic
illnesses, child abuse, neglect, and youth violence, and
child and family care to address problems of significant
social concern especially in underserved populations and
underserved geographical areas.
``(b) Stipends and Allowances.--The Director of the Center
may provide individuals receiving training and instruction or
traineeships or fellowships under subsection (a) with such
stipends and allowances (including amounts for travel and
subsistence and dependency allowances) as the Director
determines necessary.
``(c) Grants.--The Director of the Center may make grants
to nonprofit institutions to provide training and instruction
and traineeships and fellowships under subsection (a).

``SEC. 485K. ADVISORY COUNCIL.

``(a) Duties.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish an
advisory council for the Center that shall advise, assist,
consult with, and make recommendations to the Secretary and
the Director of the Center on matters related to the
activities carried out by and through the Center and the
policies with respect to such activities.
``(2) Gifts.--The advisory council for the Center may
recommend to the Secretary the acceptance, in accordance with
section 231, of conditional gifts for study, investigations,
and research and for the acquisition of grounds or
construction, equipment, or maintenance of facilities for the
Center.
``(3) Other duties and functions.--The advisory council for
the Center--
``(A)(i) may make recommendations to the Director of the
Center with respect to research to be conducted by the
Center;
``(ii) may review applications for grants and cooperative
agreements for research or training and recommend for
approval applications for projects that demonstrate the
probability of making valuable contributions to human
knowledge; and
``(iii) may review any grant, contract, or cooperative
agreement proposed to be made or entered into by the Center;
``(B) may collect, by correspondence or by personal
investigation, information relating to studies that are being
carried out in the United States or any other country and,
with the approval of the Director of the Center, make such
information available through appropriate publications; and
``(C) may appoint subcommittees and convene workshops and
conferences.
``(b) Membership.--
``(1) In general.--The advisory council shall be composed
of the ex officio members described in paragraph (2) and not
more than 18 individuals to be appointed by the Secretary
under paragraph (3).
``(2) Ex officio members.--The ex officio members of the
advisory council shall include--
``(A) the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the
Director of NIH, the Director of the Center, the Chief Social
Work Officer of the Veterans' Administration, the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the Associate
Director of Prevention Research at the National Institute of
Mental Health, the Director of the Division of Epidemiology
and Services Research, the Assistant Secretary of Health and
Human Services for the Administration for Children and
Families, the Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office
of Educational Research and Improvement, the Assistant
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Community
Planning and Development, and the Assistant Attorney General
for Office of Justice Programs (or the designees of such
officers); and
``(B) such additional officers or employees of the United
States as the Secretary determines necessary for the advisory
council to effectively carry out its functions.
``(3) Appointed members.--The Secretary shall appoint not
to exceed 18 individuals to the advisory council, of which--
``(A) not more than two-thirds of such individual shall be
appointed from among the leading representatives of the
health and scientific disciplines (including public health
and the behavioral or social sciences) relevant to the
activities of the Center, and at least 7 such individuals
shall be professional social workers who are recognized
experts in the area of clinical practice, education, or
research; and
``(B) not more than one-third of such individuals shall be
appointed from the general public and shall include leaders
in fields of public policy, law, health policy, economics,
and management.

The Secretary shall make appointments to the advisory council
in such a manner as to ensure that the terms of the members
do not all expire in the same year.
``(4) Compensation.--Members of the advisory council who
are officers or employees of the United States shall not
receive any compensation for service on the advisory council.
The remaining members shall receive, for each day (including
travel time) they are engaged in the performance of the
functions of the advisory council, compensation at rates not
to exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum rate payable
for a position at grade GS-15 of the General Schedule.
``(c) Terms.--

[[Page S88]]

``(1) In general.--The term of office of an individual
appointed to the advisory council under subsection (b)(3)
shall be 4 years, except that any individual appointed to
fill a vacancy on the advisory council shall serve for the
remainder of the unexpired term. A member may serve after the
expiration of the member's term until a successor has been
appointed.
``(2) Reappointments.--A member of the advisory council who
has been appointed under subsection (b)(3) for a term of 4
years may not be reappointed to the advisory council prior to
the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date on
which the prior term expired.
``(3) Vacancy.--If a vacancy occurs on the advisory council
among the members under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary
shall make an appointment to fill that vacancy not later than
90 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.
``(d) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the advisory council
shall be selected by the Secretary from among the members
appointed under subsection (b)(3), except that the Secretary
may select the Director of the Center to be the chairperson
of the advisory council. The term of office of the
chairperson shall be 2 years.
``(e) Meetings.--The advisory council shall meet at the
call of the chairperson or upon the request of the Director
of the Center, but not less than 3 times each fiscal year.
The location of the meetings of the advisory council shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of the Center.
``(f) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the
Center shall designate a member of the staff of the Center to
serve as the executive secretary of the advisory council. The
Director of the Center shall make available to the advisory
council such staff, information, and other assistance as the
council may require to carry out its functions. The Director
of the Center shall provide orientation and training for new
members of the advisory council to provide such members with
such information and training as may be appropriate for their
effective participation in the functions of the advisory
council.
``(g) Comments and Recommendations.--The advisory council
may prepare, for inclusion in the biennial report under
section 485L--
``(1) comments with respect to the activities of the
advisory council in the fiscal years for which the report is
prepared;
``(2) comments on the progress of the Center in meeting its
objectives; and
``(3) recommendations with respect to the future direction
and program and policy emphasis of the center.
The advisory council may prepare such additional reports as
it may determine appropriate.

``SEC. 485L. BIENNIAL REPORT.

``The Director of the Center, after consultation with the
advisory council for the Center, shall prepare for inclusion
in the biennial report under section 403, a biennial report
that shall consist of a description of the activities of the
Center and program policies of the Director of the Center in
the fiscal years for which the report is prepared. The
Director of the Center may prepare such additional reports as
the Director determines appropriate. The Director of the
Center shall provide the advisory council of the Center an
opportunity for the submission of the written comments
described in section 485K(g).

``SEC. 485M. QUARTERLY REPORT.

``The Director of the Center shall prepare and submit to
Congress a quarterly report that contains a summary of
findings and policy implications derived from research
conducted or supported through the Center.''.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 116. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to allocate
$10,000,000,000 of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to local
governments that have suffered significant losses due to highly-rated
investments in failed financial institutions; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. MR. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will provide relief to local governments that have suffered losses
due to highly-rated investments with failed financial institutions,
such as Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.
The TARP Assistance for Local Governments Act would require the
Treasury Secretary to provide $10 billion in TARP funds to local
governments that suffered losses due to investments in failed financial
institutions; and limit relief to local governments with investments in
failed financial institutions that were highly rated, as determined by
the Treasury Secretary.
This legislation is necessary because local governments are in
jeopardy of losing up to $10 billion as a result of these investments.
In California 28 cities and counties could lose nearly $300 million.
These investments include basic operational funds which cities and
counties rely upon to function.
For many cities and counties that are already struggling with budget
shortfalls, the consequences of these losses are severe.
Public safety, education, public health, infrastructure, and transit
will be compromised.
Communities large and small are significantly impacted.
These are examples from my State that demonstrate the gravity of this
situation.
This list was included in a December 22 letter to Secretary Paulson,
and to date, I have not received a response. San Mateo County sustained
a loss of $30 million, which will require the county to abandon plans
for a new and urgently needed county jail. The current jail will
continue to operate in overcrowded conditions, far beyond the rating of
the facility. The result will be unsafe working conditions for the
corrections personnel and the likelihood that convicted criminals will
be released into the community early and in large numbers.
The City of Shafter, a small community of 15,000 in the San Joaquin
Valley, sustained a loss of $300,000, or nearly 4 percent of its annual
budget. The City will be forced to make across-the-board cuts in all
services, including police and fire.
Monterey County is facing a $30 million loss. Amid numerous other
cuts, hardest hit will be programs targeting gang activities, including
a special task force and the construction of new adult and juvenile
corrections facilities to manage these criminals.
The San Mateo County Transportation Authority sustained a loss of
more than $25 million, which will mean delays and higher costs for
major projects that will reduce emissions and traffic, specifically the
electrification of the Caltrain Peninsula Commuter Rail Service.
Similarly, cuts in highway and roads projects will put more people on
the local roads for longer times at a major cost in compromised air
quality.
The City of Culver City has lost $1 million. This will result in a
substantial reduction in planned street repairs and higher liability
exposure from accidents, greater environmental degradation from storm
water drain off, and worsened traffic congestion in a region of the
U.S. ranked as one of the worst for traffic.
The Hillsborough City School District lost over $924,000. Projects to
create more classrooms for increased enrollment will not take place,
increasing class sizes. Combined with other budget cuts from the State,
all the District's programs are threatened.
The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, which provides
sanitary sewer and storm water services to the City of Vallejo,
population 119,600, and nearby areas of Solano County, sustained losses
of $4.5 million in Lehman Brothers investments and $1.46 million in
Washington Mutual investments. The result is that aging infrastructure
essential to the health of this community will not be replaced. The
City of Vallejo recently declared Chapter 9 Municipal bankruptcy.
Sacramento County sustained an increase in costs of $8 million
related to an interest rate swap agreement with Lehman. This increase
means fewer funds for sheriff's patrol and investigations and probation
supervision, resulting in an increased risk to the safety of the
community and reductions in social safety net services, at a time of
increased community need.
The City of Folsom lost $700,000, which has caused the City to
indefinitely postpone staffing and equipping a new fire station.
The San Mateo County Community College District sustained a loss of
$25 million in voter-approved bond funds. As a result, the District
will be forced to abandon a program to build more classrooms, and,
therefore, turn away thousands of potential students, many of them
unemployed adults seeking job training.
The economic rescue legislation included a provision to require the
Secretary of the Treasury to consider the impact of these losses on
local governments when disbursing TARP funds.
But, to date, the Secretary has not exercised his authority to assist
local governments with such funds.
The TARP Assistance for Local Governments Act of 2009 will change
this, and ensure that communities remain solvent and taxpayers are
protected.
Given the urgency of this situation, we can no longer afford to wait.
I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important
legislation.

[[Page S89]]

______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Boxer,
and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 117. A bill to protect the property and security of homeowners who
are subject to foreclosure proceedings, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing the Foreclosure Rescue
Fraud Act of 2009 with my colleagues Senators Collins and Lincoln. This
legislation, which we introduced last Congress, will make it more
difficult for financial predators to take advantage of homeowners in
foreclosure.
Foreclosure rescue scams are another consequence of the housing
crisis that is plaguing the country. Foreclosure filings have been
climbing across the country for the past two years and in Wisconsin,
filings have risen 22 percent over the past year. Additionally, the
Federal Reserve estimates that 2.5 million Americans will be facing
foreclosure in 2009. As default rates and foreclosure filings have
steadily increased, so have financial scams which prey on homeowners.
The Better Business Bureau listed foreclosure rescue scams as one of
the top ten financial scams in 2008.
For most people, their home is their greatest asset. When a homeowner
falls behind in their payments, it can cause a great deal of emotional
stress on the family. Scam artists prey on owner's desperation and give
them a false sense of security, claiming they can help ``save their
home.'' The types of scams vary, but the end result is that the
homeowner is left in a more desperate situation than before.
The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act aims to prevent these cruel abuses
by increasing disclosure and creating strict requirements for a person
or entity offering foreclosure-rescue services. The legislation
prohibits a ``foreclosure consultant'' from collecting any fee or
compensation before completing contracted services, and from obtaining
power of attorney from a homeowner. It also requires full disclosure of
third-party consideration in the property and creates a 3-day right to
cancel the foreclosure-rescue contract. Finally, the legislation
creates a federal ``floor'' of protection and allows states without
rescue-fraud laws to use these provisions as a way to help scam
victims. The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act will make it easier for
states and the Federal Government to combat these schemes and protect
people who are already financially distressed from being made worse
off.
The past year has exposed the irregularities and inadequacies of our
banking regulations. As Congress continues to work on proposals to
restore confidence in our financial industry, it is imperative that we
put in place new rules and regulations that better protect consumers in
order to avoid further economic strain.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Brown, Mr.
Nelson of Florida, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Casey):
S. 118. A bill to amend section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, to
improve the program under such section for supportive housing for the
elderly, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing the Section 202 Supportive
Housing for the Elderly Act of 2008 with my colleague Senator Charles
Schumer for the purpose of expanding and improving the Department of
Housing and Urban Development's Section 202 Supportive Housing for the
Elderly Program. Section 202 provides capital grants to nonprofit
community organizations for the development of supportive housing and
provision of rental assistance exclusively for low-income seniors. This
program supplies housing that includes access to supportive services to
allow seniors to remain safely in their homes and age in place. Access
to supportive services reduces the occurrence of costly nursing home
stays and helps save both seniors and the Federal Government money.
There are over 300,000 seniors living in 6,000 Section 202
developments across the country. Unfortunately, the program is far from
meeting the growing demand. Approximately 730,000 additional senior
housing units will be needed by 2020 in order to address the future
housing needs of low-income seniors. There are currently 10 seniors
vying for each unit that becomes available, with many seniors waiting
years before finding a home. To make matters worse, we are losing older
Section 202 properties to developers of high-priced condominiums and
apartments. As a result, many seniors currently participating in the
program could end up homeless.
Congress needs to act now to address the demand for safe, affordable
senior housing. Our legislation would promote the construction of new
senior housing facilities as well as preserve and improve upon existing
facilities. The legislation would also support the conversion of
existing facilities into assisted living facilities that provide a wide
variety of additional supportive health and social services. Under
current law, these processes are time-consuming and bureaucratic, often
requiring waivers and special permission from HUD. Finally, our
legislation provides priority consideration for our homeless seniors
seeking a place to call their own. With this bill, we hope to reduce
current impediments and increase the availability of affordable and
supportive housing for our Nations most vulnerable seniors.
I want to thank the American Association of Homes and Services for
the Aging as well as the Wisconsin Association of Homes and Services
for the Aging for being champions of this legislation and for working
with us to develop a comprehensive bill that will help meet the growing
need for senior housing in this Nation.
Senior citizens deserve to have housing that will help them maintain
their independence. I urge that my colleagues will join Senator Schumer
and me in our efforts to ensure that older Americans have a place to
call home during their golden years.
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. 118

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Section
202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

TITLE I--NEW CONSTRUCTION REFORMS

Sec. 101. Project rental assistance.
Sec. 102. Selection criteria.
Sec. 103. Development cost limitations.
Sec. 104. Owner deposits.
Sec. 105. Definition of private nonprofit organization.
Sec. 106. Preferences for homeless elderly.
Sec. 107. Nonmetropolitan allocation.

TITLE II--REFINANCING

Sec. 201. Approval of prepayment of debt.
Sec. 202. Sources of refinancing.
Sec. 203. Use of unexpended amounts.
Sec. 204. Use of project residual receipts.
Sec. 205. Additional provisions.

TITLE III--ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES

Sec. 301. Definition of assisted living facility.
Sec. 302. Monthly assistance payment under rental assistance.

TITLE IV--FACILITATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION TRANSACTIONS

Sec. 401. Use of sale or refinancing proceeds.

TITLE V--NATIONAL SENIOR HOUSING CLEARINGHOUSE

Sec. 501. National senior housing clearinghouse.

TITLE I--NEW CONSTRUCTION REFORMS

SEC. 101. PROJECT RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

Paragraph (2) of section 202(c) of the Housing Act of 1959
(12 U.S.C. 1701q(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``assistance.--'' the following:
``(A) Initial project rental assistance contract.--'';
(2) in the last sentence, by striking ``may'' and inserting
``shall''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) Renewal of and increases in contract amounts.--
``(i) Expiration of contract term.--Upon the expiration of
each contract term, the Secretary shall adjust the annual
contract amount to provide for reasonable project costs, and
any increases, including adequate reserves, supportive
services, and service coordinators, except that any contract
amounts not used by a project during a contract term shall
not be available for such adjustments upon renewal.
``(ii) Emergency situations.--In the event of emergency
situations that are outside the

[[Page S90]]

control of the owner, the Secretary shall increase the annual
contract amount, subject to reasonable review and limitations
as the Secretary shall provide.''.

SEC. 102. SELECTION CRITERIA.

Section 202(f)(1) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C.
1701q(f)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) and (G) as
subparagraphs (G) and (H), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) (as so redesignated
by paragraph (2) of this subsection) the following new
subparagraph:
``(F) the extent to which the applicant has ensured that a
service coordinator will be employed or otherwise retained
for the housing, who has the managerial capacity and
responsibility for carrying out the actions described in
subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (g)(2);''.

SEC. 103. DEVELOPMENT COST LIMITATIONS.

Section 202(h)(1) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C.
1701q(h)(1)) is amended, in the matter preceding subparagraph
(A), by inserting ``reasonable'' before ``development cost
limitations''.

SEC. 104. OWNER DEPOSITS.

Section 202(j)(3)(A) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C.
1701q(j)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting after the period at
the end the following: ``Such amount shall be used only to
cover operating deficits during the first 3 years of
operations and shall not be used to cover construction
shortfalls or inadequate initial project rental assistance
amounts.''.

SEC. 105. DEFINITION OF PRIVATE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.

Subparagraph (B) of section 202(k)(4) of the Housing Act of
1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q(k)(4)(B)) is amended by inserting
before the semicolon the following: ``, except that, in the
case of any national organization that is the owner of
multiple housing projects assisted under this section, the
organization may comply with clause (i) of this subparagraph
by having a local advisory board to the governing board of
the organization the membership which is selected in the
manner required under clause (i)''.

SEC. 106. PREFERENCES FOR HOMELESS ELDERLY.

Subsection (j) of section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959
(12 U.S.C. 1701q(j)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(9) Preferences for homeless elderly.--The Secretary
shall permit an owner of housing assisted under this section
to establish for, and apply to, such housing a preference in
tenant selection for the homeless elderly, either within the
application or after selection pursuant to subsection (f),
but only if--
``(A) such preference is consistent with paragraph (2); and
``(B) the owner demonstrates that the supportive services
identified pursuant to subsection (e)(4), or additional
supportive services to be made available upon implementation
of the preference, will meet the needs of the homeless
elderly, maintain safety and security for all tenants, and be
provided on a consistent, long-term, and economical basis.''.

SEC. 107. NONMETROPOLITAN ALLOCATION.

Paragraph (3) of section 202(l) of the Housing Act of 1959
(12 U.S.C. 1701q(l)(3)) is amended by inserting after the
period at the end the following: ``In complying with this
paragraph, the Secretary shall either operate a national
competition for the nonmetropolitan funds or make allocations
to regional offices of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development.''.

TITLE II--REFINANCING

SEC. 201. APPROVAL OF PREPAYMENT OF DEBT.

Subsection (a) of section 811 of the American Homeownership
and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note)
is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``,
for which the Secretary's consent to prepayment is
required,'' after ``Affordable Housing Act)'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``at least 20 years following'' before
``the maturity date'';
(B) by inserting ``project-based'' before ``rental
assistance payments contract'';
(C) by inserting ``project-based'' before ``rental housing
assistance programs''; and
(D) by inserting ``, or any successor project-based rental
assistance program,'' after ``1701s))'';
(3) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) the prepayment may involve refinancing of the loan if
such refinancing results in--
``(A) a lower interest rate on the principal of the loan
for the project and in reductions in debt service related to
such loan; or
``(B) a transaction in which the project owner will address
the physical needs of the project, but only if, as a result
of the refinancing--
``(i) the rent charges for unassisted families residing in
the project do not increase or such families are provided
rental assistance under a senior preservation rental
assistance contract for the project pursuant to subsection
(e); and
``(ii) the overall cost for providing rental assistance
under section 8 for the project (if any) is not increased,
except, upon approval by the Secretary to--

``(I) mark-up-to-market contracts pursuant to section
524(a)(3) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f note), as such section is
carried out by the Secretary for properties owned by
nonprofit organizations; or
``(II) mark-up-to-budget contracts pursuant to section
524(a)(4) of the Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and
Affordability Act (42 U.S.C. 1437f note), as such section is
carried out by the Secretary for properties owned by eligible
owners (as such term is defined in section 202(k) of the
Housing Act of 1959 (12U.S.C. 1701q(k)); and''; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) notwithstanding paragraph (2)(A), the prepayment and
refinancing authorized pursuant to paragraph (2)(B) involves
an increase in debt service only in the case of a refinancing
of a project assisted with a loan under such section 202
carrying an interest rate of 6 percent or lower.''.

SEC. 202. SOURCES OF REFINANCING.

The last sentence of section 811(b) of the American
Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C.
1701q note) is amended--
(1) by inserting after ``National Housing Act,'' the
following: ``or approving the standards used by authorized
lenders to underwrite a loan refinanced with risk sharing as
provided by section 542 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C.1701 note),''; and
(2) by striking ``may'' and inserting ``shall''.

SEC. 203. USE OF UNEXPENDED AMOUNTS.

Subsection (c) of section 811 of the American Homeownership
and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note)
is amended--
(1) by striking ``Use of Unexpended Amounts.--'' and
inserting ``Use of Proceeds.--'';
(2) by amending the matter preceding paragraph (1) to read
as follows: ``Upon execution of the refinancing for a project
pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall ensure that
proceeds are used in a manner advantageous to tenants, or are
used in the provision of affordable rental housing and
related social services for elderly persons by the private
nonprofit organization project owner, private nonprofit
organization project sponsor, or private nonprofit
organization project developer, including--'';
(3) in paragraph (1), by striking ``not more than 15
percent of'';
(4) in paragraph (2), by inserting before the semicolon the
following; ``, including reducing the number of units by
reconfiguring units that are functionally obsolete,
unmarketable, or not economically viable'';
(5) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(6) in paragraph (4), by striking ``according to a pro rata
allocation of shared savings resulting from the
refinancing.'' and inserting a semicolon; and
(7) by adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
``(5) rehabilitation of the project to ensure long-term
viability;
``(6) the payment to the project owner, sponsor, or third
party developer of a developer's fee in an amount not to
exceed--
``(A) in the case of a project refinanced through a State
low income housing tax credit program, the fee permitted by
the low income housing tax credit program as calculated by
the State program as a percentage of acceptable development
cost as defined by that State program; or
``(B) in the case of a project refinanced through any other
source of refinancing, 15 percent of the acceptable
development cost; and
``(7) the payment of equity, if any, to--
``(A) in the case of a sale, to the seller or the sponsor
of the seller, in an amount equal to the lesser of the
purchase price or the appraised value of the project, as each
is reduced by the cost of prepaying any outstanding
indebtedness on the project and transaction costs of the
sale; or
``(B) in the case of a refinancing without the transfer of
the project, to the project owner or the project sponsor, in
an amount equal to the difference between the appraised value
of the project less the outstanding indebtedness and total
acceptable development cost.

For purposes of paragraphs (6)(B) and (7)(B), the term
``acceptable development cost'' shall include, as applicable,
the cost of acquisition, rehabilitation, loan prepayment,
initial reserve deposits, and transaction costs.''.

SEC. 204. USE OF PROJECT RESIDUAL RECEIPTS.

Paragraph (1) of section 811(d) of the American
Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C.
1701q note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``not more than 15 percent of''; and
(2) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``or other purposes approved by the Secretary''.

SEC. 205. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.

Section 811 of the American Homeownership and Economic
Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsections:
``(e) Senior Preservation Rental Assistance Contracts.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in connection
with a prepayment plan for a project approved under
subsection (a) by the Secretary or as otherwise approved by
the Secretary to prevent displacement of elderly residents of
the project in the case of refinancing or recapitalization
and to further preservation and affordability of such
project, the Secretary shall provide project-based rental
assistance for the project under a senior preservation rental
assistance contract, as follows:

[[Page S91]]

``(1) Assistance under the contract shall be made available
to the private nonprofit organization owner--
``(A) for a term of at least 20 years, subject to annual
appropriations; and
``(B) under the same rules governing project-based rental
assistance made available under section 8 of the Housing Act
of 1937.
``(2) Any projects for which a senior preservation rental
assistance contract is provided shall be subject to a use
agreement to ensure continued project affordability having a
term of the longer of (A) the term of the senior preservation
rental assistance contract, or (B) such term as is required
by the new financing.
``(f) Mortgage Sale Demonstration.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may sell mortgages
associated with loans made under section 202 of the Housing
Act of 1959 (as in effect before the enactment of the
Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act) in
accordance with the relevant terms for sales of subsidized
loans on multifamily housing projects under section 203 of
the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978 (12
U.S.C. 1701z-11). For the purpose of demonstrating the
efficiency, effectiveness, quality, and timeliness of asset
management and regulatory oversight of certain portfolios of
such mortgages by State housing finance agencies, the
Secretary shall carry out a demonstration program, in not
more than 5 States, to sell portfolios of such mortgages to
State housing finance agencies for a price not to exceed the
unpaid principal balances of such mortgages and otherwise in
accordance with the requirements of such section 203.
``(2) Limitations.--In carrying out the demonstration
program required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
``(A) prohibit State housing finance agencies from giving
preference to, or conditioning the approval of, awards of
subordinate debt funds, allocations of tax credits, or tax
exempt bonds based on the use of financing for the first
mortgage that is provided by such State housing finance
agency;
``(B) require such agencies to allow, in accordance with
this section, for the refinancing or prepayment of loans made
under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 with a loan
selected by the owners, except that any use restrictions on
the property for which the loan was made shall remain in
effect for the duration provided under the original terms of
such loan; and
``(C) only carry out the demonstration program in a State
that has experience with operating and maintaining a housing
preservation revolving loan fund.
``(3) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study to
evaluate the performance and results of the demonstration
program carried out under paragraph (1). In conducting such
study, the Secretary shall place particular emphasis on
whether the asset management functions and activities related
to loans and properties held in the portfolios sold to State
housing finance agencies under such demonstration program
have been accomplished in a timely, effective, and efficient
manner, including an analysis of approvals of refinancings
and preservation transactions, rent increase requests,
withdrawals from reserves or residual receipts (where there
is no contract administrator), and provider and resident
satisfaction.
``(4) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall submit a
report to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services
of the House of Representatives on--
``(A) the findings of the study required under paragraph
(3); and
``(B) any recommendations the Secretary may have for
expanding the demonstration project required under paragraph
(1).
``(g) Subordination or Assumption of Existing Debt.--In
lieu of prepayment under this section of the indebtedness
with respect to a project, the Secretary may approve--
``(1) in connection with new financing for the project, the
subordination of the loan for the project under section 202
of the Housing Act of 1959 (as in effect before the enactment
of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act) and
the continued subordination of any other existing subordinate
debt previously approved by the Secretary to facilitate
preservation of the project as affordable housing; or
``(2) the assumption (which may include the subordination
described in paragraph (1)) of the loan for the project under
such section 202 in connection with the transfer of the
project with such a loan to a private nonprofit organization.
``(h) Flexible Subsidy Debt.--The Secretary shall waive the
requirement that debt for a project pursuant to the flexible
subsidy program under section 201 of the Housing and
Community Development Amendments of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 1715z-1a)
be prepaid in connection with a prepayment, refinancing, or
transfer under this section of a project if such waiver is
necessary for the financial feasibility of the transaction
and is consistent with the long-term preservation of the
project as affordable housing.
``(i) Tenant Involvement in Prepayment and Refinancing.--
The Secretary shall not accept an offer to prepay the loan
for any project under section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959
unless the Secretary has--
``(1) determined that the owner of the project has notified
the tenants of the owner's request for approval of a
prepayment;
``(2) determined that the owner of the project has provided
the tenants with an opportunity to comment on the owner's
request for approval of a prepayment, including a description
of any anticipated rehabilitation or other use of the
proceeds from the transaction, and its impacts on project
rents, tenant contributions, or the affordability
restrictions for the project; and
``(3) taken such comments into consideration.
``(j) Definition of Private Nonprofit Organization.--For
purposes of this section, the term `private nonprofit
organization' has the meaning given such term in section
202(k) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q(k)).''.

TITLE III--ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES

SEC. 301. DEFINITION OF ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY.

Section 202b(g) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C.
1701q-2(g)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and
inserting the following new paragraph:
``(1) the term `assisted living facility' means a facility
that--
``(A) is owned by a private nonprofit organization; and
``(B)(i) is licensed and regulated by a State (or if there
is no State law providing for such licensing and regulation
by the State, by the municipality or other political
subdivision in which the facility is located); or
``(ii)(I) makes available, directly or through recognized
and experienced third party service providers, to residents
at the resident's request or choice supportive services to
assist the residents in carrying out the activities of daily
living, as described in section 232(b)(6)(B) of the National
Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715w(b)(6)(B)); and
``(II) provides separate dwelling units for residents, each
of which may contain a full kitchen and bathroom and which
includes common rooms and other facilities appropriate for
the provision of supportive services to the residents of the
facility; and''.

SEC. 302. MONTHLY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT UNDER RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

Clause (iii) of section 8(o)(18)(B) of the United States
Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f(o)(18)(B)(iii)) is
amended by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, except that a family may be required at the
time the family initially receives such assistance to pay
rent in an amount exceeding 40 percent of the monthly
adjusted income of the family by such an amount or percentage
that is reasonable given the services and amenities provided
and as the Secretary deems appropriate.''.

TITLE IV--FACILITATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION TRANSACTIONS

SEC. 401. USE OF SALE OR REFINANCING PROCEEDS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in connection
with the sale or refinancing of a multifamily housing
project, or the transfer of an assistance contract on such a
property, that requires the approval of the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, the Secretary shall not impose
any condition that restricts the amount or use of sale or
refinancing proceeds, or requires the filing of a financial
report, unless such condition is expressly authorized by an
existing contract entered into between the Secretary (or the
Secretary's designee) and the project owner before the
imposition of a condition prohibited by this section or is a
general condition for new financing with a mortgage insured
by the Secretary. Any such condition previously imposed by
the Secretary after January 1, 2005, shall, at the option of
the project owner, be considered void and not enforceable,
and any agreement containing such a condition shall be
rescinded and may be reissued without the void condition.

TITLE V--NATIONAL SENIOR HOUSING CLEARINGHOUSE

SEC. 501. NATIONAL SENIOR HOUSING CLEARINGHOUSE.

(a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall establish and operate a clearinghouse to
serve as a national repository to receive, collect, process,
assemble, and disseminate information regarding the
availability and quality of multifamily developments for
elderly tenants, including--
(1) the availability of--
(A) supportive housing for the elderly pursuant to section
202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q), including
any housing unit assisted with a project rental assistance
contract under such section;
(B) properties and units eligible for assistance under
section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437f);
(C) properties eligible for the low-income housing tax
credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
(D) units in assisted living facilities insured pursuant to
section 221(d)(4) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C.
1715l(d)(4));
(E) units in any multifamily project that has been
converted into an assisted living facility for elderly
persons pursuant to section 202b of the Housing Act of 1959
(12 U.S.C. 1701q-2); and
(F) any other federally assisted or subsidized housing for
the elderly;
(2) the number of available units in each property,
project, or facility described in paragraph (1);
(3) the number of bedrooms in each available unit in each
property, project, or facility described in paragraph (1);

[[Page S92]]

(4) the estimated cost to a potential tenant to rent or
reside in each available unit in each property, project, or
facility described in paragraph (1);
(5) the presence of a waiting list for entry into any
available unit in each property, project, or facility
described in paragraph (1);
(6) the number of persons on the waiting list for entry
into any available unit in each property, project, or
facility described in paragraph (1);
(7) the estimated time an individual can expect to be on
the waiting list for entry into any available unit in each
property, project, or facility described in paragraph (1);
(8) the amenities available in each available unit in each
property, project, or facility described in paragraph (1),
including--
(A) the services provided by such property, project, or
facility;
(B) the size and availability of common space within each
property, project, or facility;
(C) the availability of organized activities for
individuals residing in such property, project, or facility;
and
(D) any other additional amenities available to individuals
residing in such property, project, or facility;
(9) the level of care (personal, physical, or nursing)
available to individuals residing in any property, project,
or facility described in paragraph (1);
(10) whether there is a service coordinator in any
property, project, or facility described in paragraph (1);
and
(11) any other criteria determined appropriate by the
Secretary.
(b) Collection and Updating of Information.--
(1) Initial collection.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development shall conduct an annual survey requesting
information from each owner of a property, project, or
facility described in subsection (a)(1) regarding the
provisions described in paragraphs (2) through (11) of such
subsection.
(2) Response time.--Not later than 30 days after receiving
the request described under paragraph (1), the owner of each
such property, project, or facility shall submit such
information to the Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development.
(3) Public availability.--Not later than 60 days after the
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development receives the
submission of any information required under paragraph (2),
the Secretary shall make such information publicly available
through the clearinghouse.
(4) Updates.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development shall conduct an annual survey of each owner of a
property, project, or facility described in subsection (a)(1)
for the purpose of updating or modifying information provided
in the initial collection of information under paragraph (1).
Not later than 30 days after receiving such a request, the
owner of each such property, project, or facility shall
submit such updates or modifications to the Secretary. Not
later than 60 days after receiving such updates or
modifications, the Secretary shall inform the clearinghouse
of such updated or modified information.
(c) Functions.--The clearinghouse established under
subsection (a) shall--
(1) respond to inquiries from State and local governments,
other organizations, and individuals requesting information
regarding the availability of housing in multifamily
developments for elderly tenants;
(2) make such information publicly available via the
Internet website of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, which shall include--
(A) access via electronic mail; and
(B) an easily searchable, sortable, downloadable, and
accessible index that itemizes the availability of housing in
multifamily developments for elderly tenants by State,
county, and zip code;
(3) establish a toll-free number to provide the public with
specific information regarding the availability of housing in
multifamily developments for elderly tenants; and
(4) perform any other duty that the Secretary determines
necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated such sums as necessary to carry out this
section.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 119. A bill for the relief of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private
relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and his wife Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast,
but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for
approximately 15 years.
The story of Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they
merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of
relief as a private bill.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were previously political activists who were
subjected to numerous atrocities in the early 1990s in the Ivory Coast.
After a demonstration in which both were promoting peace, they were
jailed and tortured by their own government. Ms. Toto was brutally
raped by her captors and in 1997 learned that she had contracted HIV.
Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were
able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr.
Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms.
Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being
diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto was able to give birth to two healthy
children, Melody, age 10, and Emmanuel, age 6.
Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated
themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They pay
taxes and own their own home in Hercules, CA. They are active members
of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.
Mr. Tape works full-time as a security guard with Universal
Protective Services. He also manages a small business, Melody's Carpet
Cleaning & Upholstery. He employs four other individuals, all U.S.
citizens. Unfortunately, in 2002, Mr. Tape was diagnosed with urologic
cancer. While his doctor states that the cancer is currently in
remission, he will continue to require life-long surveillance to
monitor for reoccurrence of the disease.
In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto became a certified
Nursing Assistant in 2001 and currently works at Creekside Health Care
in San Pablo, CA. She hopes to finish her schooling so that she can
become a Registered Nurse. Ms. Toto continues to receive medical
treatment for HIV. According to her doctor, without access to adequate
health care and laboratory monitoring, she is at risk of developing
life threatening illnesses.
Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the
U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately
denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to
imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been
afraid to return to the Ivory Coast due to his prior association with
President Gbagbo. Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family will be
targeted if they return to the Ivory Coast.
One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to
remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have
on their two children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United States is
the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that if the
family returns to the Ivory Coast, these two young children will be
forced to enter the army.
We are the only hope for this family who seeks to remain in the
United States. To send them back to the Ivory Coast, where they will
likely face persecution and will not be able to obtain adequate medical
treatment for their illnesses would be devastating to them. They are
contributing members of their community and have embraced the American
dream with their strong work ethic and family values. I have received
approximately 50 letters from the church community in support of this
family. Representative George Miller has also requested that we assist
this family.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. 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. 119

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR GUY PRIVAT TAPE AND
LOU NAZIE RAYMONDE TOTO.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto shall each
be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa or for
adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence upon filing an application for
issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act
(8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Guy Privat Tape or Lou Nazie
Raymonde Toto enters the United States before the filing
deadline specified in subsection (c), Guy Privat Tape or Lou
Nazie Raymonde Toto, as appropriate, shall be considered to
have entered

[[Page S93]]

and remained lawfully in the United States and shall be
eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of
an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status
is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Guy Privat Tape and
Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto, the Secretary of State shall
instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, during the
current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde
Toto under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde
Toto under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 120. A bill for the relief of Denes Fulop and Gyorgyi Fulop; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration
relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and
Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for
more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen
children.
I first introduced this bill in June, 2000. Today, the Fulops
continue to face deportation having exhausted all administrative
remedies under our immigration system.
The Fulops' story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits
Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief.
The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May of
2000, when the Fulops' eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an
accomplished 15-year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism.
Bobby was considered the shining star of his family.
That same year their 6-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed
with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart
condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago,
she successfully underwent heart surgery, but requires medical
supervision to ensure her good health.
The Fulops' youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature.
He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being
closely monitored by physicians.
Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face
deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family
traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days.
Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary
would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would
have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent
residents.
Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. Due to
large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time
their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had
taken effect.
Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were
statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of
removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulops'
application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they
would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996
law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with
U.S. citizen children and many positive factors in their favor.
The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the
United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to
Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother
is handicapped and they went to help remodel his home.
The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry
contractor and the Owner and President of his own construction
company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for almost 14
years.
The couple is active in their church and community. As Pastor Peter
Petrovic of the Apostolic Christian Church of San Diego says in his
letter of support, ``[t]he family is an exceptional asset to their
community.'' Mrs. Fulop has served as a Sunday school teacher and
volunteers regularly at Heritage K-8 Charter School in Escondido. Mrs.
Morris, a Heritage K-8 Charter School faculty member says in her letter
of support that Mrs. Fulop is ``. . . a valuable asset to our school
and community.''
Mr. President, this is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened
to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were changed in the
middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were
eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around
to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer
eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief
ceased to exist.
The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early
1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on
the children, all of whom were born here and who range from five years
old to 21 years of age. Their two eldest children are attending
college, one studying structural engineering and the other studying to
become a dental hygienist.
It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for
this family to remain together in the United States given their many
years here, the profound sadness they have already experienced and the
harm that would come from their deportation to their six U.S. citizen
children.
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. 120

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or any order, for the purposes of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Denes Fulop and
Gyorgyi Fulop shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted
to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible
for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1255).
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant
visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of immigrant visas to Denes Fulop and Gyorgyi Fulop, the
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to
reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent fiscal year,
the total number of immigrant visas that are made available
to natives of the country of birth of Denes Fulop and Gyorgyi
Fulop under section or 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the
total number of immigrant visas that are of birth of Denes
Fulop and Gyorgyi Fulop under section 202(e) of that Act (8
U.S.C. 1152(e)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 121. A bill for the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria
Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private immigration
relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elena Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana
Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno
area of California.
Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20
years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 23, and Cindy, age 19,
also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three
children, Roberto, age 16, Daniel, age 13, and Saray, age 11, are
United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola and their two
eldest children face deportation.
The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they
merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of
relief as a private bill.

[[Page S94]]

The Arreolas are in this uncertain situation in part because of
grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been
disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it
compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of
Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the disservice he caused
his immigration clients.
Mr. Arreola has lived in the United States since 1986. He was an
agricultural migrant worker in the fields of California for several
years, and as such would have been eligible for permanent residence
through the Seasonal Agricultural Workers, SAW, program, had he known
about it.
Mrs. Arreola was living in the United States at the time she became
pregnant with her daughter Cindy, but returned to Mexico to give birth
so as to avoid any problems with the Immigration and Naturalization
Service.
Given the length of time that the Arreolas had, and have been, in the
United States it is quite likely that they would have qualified for
relief from deportation pursuant to the cancellation of removal
provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, but for the conduct
of their previous attorney.
Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family
to remain in the United States is the devastating impact their
deportation would have on their children--three of whom are U.S.
citizens--and the other two who have lived in the United States since
they were toddlers. For these children, this country is the only
country they really know.
Nayely, the oldest, recently graduated from Fresno Pacific University
with a degree in Business Administration and was recently hired as a
substitute teacher in Tulare County. She was the first in her family to
graduate from high school and the first to graduate college. She
attended Fresno Pacific University, a regionally ranked university, on
a full tuition scholarship package and worked part-time in the
admissions office.
At her young age, Nayely has demonstrated a strong commitment to the
ideals of citizenship in her adopted country. She has worked hard to
achieve her full potential both in her academic endeavors and through
the service she provides her community. As the Associate Dean of
Enrollment Services, Cary Templeton, at Fresno Pacific University
states in a letter of support, ``[t]he leaders of Fresno Pacific
University saw in Nayely, a young person who will become exemplary of
all that is good in the American dream.''
In high school, Nayely was a member of Advancement Via Individual
Determination, AVID, a college preparatory program in which students
commit to determining their own futures through achieving a college
degree. Nayely was also President of the Key Club, a community service
organization. She helped mentor freshmen and participates in several
other student organizations in her school. Perhaps the greatest
hardship to this family, if forced to return to Mexico, will be her
lost opportunity to realize her dreams and further contribute to her
community and to this country.
It is clear to me that Nayely feels a strong sense of responsibility
for her community and country. By all indication, this is the case as
well for all of the members of her family.
The Arreolas also have other family who are lawful permanent
residents of this country or United States citizens. Mrs. Arreola has
three brothers who are U.S. citizens and Mr. Arreola has a sister who
is a U.S. citizen. It is also my understanding that they have no
immediate family in Mexico.
According to immigration authorities, this family has never had any
problems with law enforcement. I am told that they have filed their
taxes for every year from 1990 to the present. They have always worked
hard to support themselves. As I previously mentioned, Mr. Arreola was
previously employed as a farm worker, but now has his own business
repairing electronics. His business has been successful enough to
enable him to purchase a home for his family.
It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American
dream and their continued presence in our country would do so much to
enhance the values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have
reintroduced today will enable the Arreolas to continue to make
significant contributions to their community as well as the United
States.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill.
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. 121

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or any order, for the purposes of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Esidronio Arreola-
Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola,
and Cindy Jael Arreola shall be deemed to have been lawfully
admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment
of status under section 245 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255).
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant
visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of immigrant visas to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna
Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael
Arreola, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper
officer to reduce by 4, during the current or subsequent
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Marina Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely
Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 203(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or,
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely
Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 202(e)
of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(c)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 122. A bill for the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Robert Kuan
Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei, Alice, Hsu-Liang, foreign nationals who
live in San Bruno, California.
I have decided to reintroduce private relief immigration bills on
their behalf because I believe that, without them, this hardworking
couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an
immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this
family may not remain a family for much longer.
The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of
their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous
attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before
the immigration laws changed in 1996.
Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a
citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States over 25 years ago as
tourists and established residency in San Bruno, California. Because
they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face
deportation from the United States.
After living here for so many years, removal from the United States
would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The
Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 17 years old,
Bruce, 13 years old, and Eva, 11 years old. Young Wesley suffers from
asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety.
The immigration judge who presided over the Liangs' case in 1997
concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be
adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and
friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a
country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them.
I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now
given the passage of 9 more years.
The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a
successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are
home owners, and

[[Page S95]]

are financially successful. Since they arrived in the United States,
they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the American Dream.
Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began
in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an
immigration judge.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service, however, did not act on
their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time
the immigration laws had significantly changed.
According to the immigration judge, had the INS acted on their
application for relief from deportation in a timely manner, they would
have qualified for suspension of deportation, given that they were
long-term residents of this country with U.S. citizen children and
other positive factors. By the time INS processed their application,
however, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, which changed the requirements for relief
from removal to the Liangs' disadvantage.
I supported the changes of the 1996 law, but I believe sometimes
there are exceptions which merit special consideration. The Liangs are
such a couple and family. Perhaps what distinguishes this family from
many others is that through hard work and perseverance, Mr. Liang has
achieved a significant degree of success in the United States while
battling a severe form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the
persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native
country of Laos during the Vietnam War.
Throughout his childhood and adolescence, Mr. Liang was exposed to
numerous traumatic experiences, including the murder of his mother by
the North Vietnamese and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He also
routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his
village. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan.
The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn
native country has been profound and continues to haunt him. His
psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical
depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being
deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he
and his family would be treated as second-class citizens.
Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental
health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an
outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those
prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the
well-being and future of his children.
Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to
support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs. 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. 122

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
or any order, for the purposes of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Robert Liang and
Alice Liang shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted
to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible
for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1255).
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant
visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed
with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of immigrant visas to Robert Liang and Alice Liang, the
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to
reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent fiscal year,
the total number of immigrant visas that are made available
to natives of the country of birth of Robert Liang and Alice
Liang under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)), or, if applicable, the total number
of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Robert Liang and Alice Liang under
section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 123. A bill for the relief of Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda
De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia Aranda; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation
to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jose Buendia Balderas,
his wife, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and their daughter, Ana Laura
Buendia Aranda, Mexican nationals who have been living and working in
the Fresno area of California for over 20 years.
Jose Buendia is a remarkable individual who epitomizes the American
dream. His father worked as an agricultural laborer in the Bracero
program over 25 years ago. In 1981, Jose followed his father to the
United States--where he worked in the shadows to help provide for his
family in Mexico.
Since then, Jose has moved from working as a landscaper to
construction, where he is now a valued employee of Bone Construction in
Reedley, California. He has been employed by this cement company for
the past 8 years. Although he knew nothing about construction when he
began working in the field, he was disciplined and persistent in his
training and is now a lead foreman.
His employer, Timothy Bone, says Mr. Buendia is a ``reliable,
hardworking and conscientious'' employee. In fact, it was Mr. Bone who
contacted my office to seek relief for Mr. Buendia.
Alicia Buendia, Jose Buendia's wife, has been working as a seasonal
fruit packer for several years. The family has consistently paid all of
their taxes. Recently, they paid off their mortgage and today, they are
debt free. They have health insurance, savings and retirement accounts,
participate in the company profit-sharing company, and support their
family here and in Mexico. In short, they are living the American
dream.
Their daughter, Ana Laura, is an outstanding student. She earned a
4.0 GPA at Reedley High School and was awarded an academic scholarship
to the University of California-Berkeley. Unfortunately, because of her
immigration status, she was unable to accept the scholarship and her
parents now pay full out-of-state tuition for her to attend the
University of California-Irvine. She is now completing her second year
there.
Their son, Jose, is a U.S. citizen, and graduated high school with a
3.85 grade point average and honors, and is currently an engineering
student at Reedley Junior College. For both Jose and Ana Laura, the
United States is the only country they know.
What makes the story of the Buendias so tragic is that they would
have been eligible to correct their illegal status but for the
unscrupulous practices of their former immigration attorney.
Because Mr. Buendia has been in this country for so long, he
qualified for legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform
Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately, his legalization application was
never acted upon because his attorney, Jose Velez, was convicted of
fraudulently submitting legalization and Special Agricultural Worker
applications.
This criminal conduct tainted all of Mr. Velez's clients. Although
Mr. Buendia's application was found not to contain any fraudulent
documentation, it was submitted while his lawyer was under
investigation. The result was that Mr. Buendia was unable to be
interviewed and obtain legal status.
To complicate matters, it took the Immigration and Naturalization
Service nearly 7 years to determine that Mr. Buendia's application
contained no fraudulent information. In the meantime, the Immigration
and Naturalization Service reinterpreted the law and determined that he
was no longer eligible for relief because he had left the United States
briefly when he married his wife.
Despite these setbacks, the Buendia family has continued to seek
legal status. They believed they were successful when an immigration
judge granted the family relief based on the hardship their U.S.
citizen son would face if his family was deported to Mexico.
Unfortunately, the government appealed the judge's decision and had it
overturned by the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Despite the problems with adjusting their legal status, this family
has forged ahead and continued to play a meaningful role in their
community.

[[Page S96]]

They have worked hard. They have invested in their neighborhood. They
are active in the PTA and their local church.
I believe the Buendia family should be allowed to continue to live in
this country that has become their own. If this legislation is
approved, the Buendias will be able to continue to contribute
significantly to the United States. It is my hope that Congress passes
this private legislation.
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. 123

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JOSE BUENDIA
BALDERAS, ALICIA ARANDA DE BUENDIA, AND ANA
LAURA BUENDIA ARANDA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and
Ana Laura Buendia Aranda shall each be eligible for issuance
of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia
Aranda De Buendia, or Ana Laura Buendia Aranda enter the
United States before the filing deadline specified in
subsection (c), Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De
Buendia, or Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, as appropriate, shall
be considered to have entered and remained lawfully in the
United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of status
under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of
an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status
is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jose Buendia
Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia
Aranda, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper
officer to reduce by 3, during the current or next following
fiscal year--
(1) the total number of immigrant visas that are made
available to natives of the country of birth of Jose Buendia
Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia
Aranda under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)); or
(2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that
are made available to natives of the country of birth of Jose
Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura
Buendia Aranda under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1152(e)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 124. A bill for the relief of Shigeru Yamada; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru
Yamada, a 24-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista,
California. The House passed a private relief bill on behalf of Mr.
Yamada last year, but unfortunately we were unable to move the bill in
the Senate before the end of the 110th Congress.
I have decided to re-introduce a private bill on his behalf because I
believe that Mr. Yamada represents a model American citizen, for whom
removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without
this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in
which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties.
Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two
sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr.
Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his
mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had
no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive.
Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was
killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada
spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live
with a close friend of his late mother.
The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr.
Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his
status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living
legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa
for herself and her children qualified as her dependants. Her death
revoked his legal status in the United States.
In addition, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen
at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have
become an American citizen through this marriage.
Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current
immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in
the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful.
Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option
available to him today is private relief legislation.
For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be deported
from the United States and forced to return to Japan.
First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a
model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in
2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically,
he earned a number of awards including being named an ``Outstanding
English Student'' his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and
earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award.
His teacher and coach, Mr. John describes him as being ``responsible,
hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable.'' His role
as the vice president of the Associated Student Body his senior year is
an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his
popularity and trustworthiness among his peers.
As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the ``Most Inspirational Player
of the Year'' in junior varsity baseball and football, as well as,
varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his
admiration by saying that he has ``seen in Shigeru Yamada the
responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds
to be virtuous.''

Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As
a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find
their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and
set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body.
After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for 4 years
as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The
former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes
him as an individual full of ``integrity'' who understands that as a
coach it is important to work as a ``team player.''
His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr.
Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's
commute to and from practice was 2 hours long each way. It takes an
individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never
bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr.
Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he
will be formally hired to continue coaching the team.
Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship
for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is
unaware of the nation's current cultural trends.
And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan.
All of his family lives in California. Sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan
would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone
and everything that he knows.
His sister contends that her younger brother would be ``lost'' if he
had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is unlikely that he would
be able to find any gainful employment in Japan due to his inability to
speak or read the language.
As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has
distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr.
Robert Hughes, describes him as being an ``upstanding `All-American'
young man''. Until being picked up during a routine check of riders'
immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or
convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden
on

[[Page S97]]

the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance.
With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the
ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in
every other sense.
Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to
support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada. 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. 124

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SHIGERU YAMADA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Shigeru Yamada shall be eligible for issuance of an
immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing
an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Shigeru Yamada enters the
United States before the filing deadline specified in
subsection (c), Shigeru Yamada shall be considered to have
entered and remained lawfully and shall be eligible for
adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is
filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Shigeru
Yamada, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper
officer to reduce by 1, during the current or subsequent
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of Shigeru
Yamada under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to
natives of the country of birth of Shigeru Yamada under
section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 125. A bill for the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria
Del Refugio Plascencia; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to
provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez
and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals who live
in the San Bruno area of California.
I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe
that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States
citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed,
without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much
longer.
The Plascencia's have worked for years to adjust their status through
the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by
inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused
to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in anyway. He
also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify
the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation
they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had
been ordered to leave the country 15 days prior to their deportation.
Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery,
they acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and to file the
appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any
other legal action could be taken.
For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed
from the United States.
First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs.
Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded
couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to
family, and devotion to community.
Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's
Shellfish for the over 14 years, where his dedication and willingness
to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial
position. He now overseas the market's entire packing operation and
several employees.
The president of the market, in one of the several dozen letters I
have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a
valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very
professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other
employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job
performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,''
``honest,'' and ``reliable.''
Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as
a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area.
Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia
went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree and improved
her skills to become a medical assistant.
Those who have written to me in support of Mrs. Plascencia, of which
there are several, have described her work as ``responsible,''
``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.''
In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse
Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the
community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking,
devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her
community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of
immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.''
Mrs. Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent
employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very
demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the
physicians she works with.''
Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional
successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans.
They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health
care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want
to send their children to college and give them an even better life.
This legislation is important because it would preserve these
achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to
make substantive contributions to the community in the future.
It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on
the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each
of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay
Area community.
Christina, 17, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor
student. Erika, 14, and Alfredo, Jr., 12, have worked hard at their
studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In
fact, the principal of Erika's school has recognized her as the ``Most
Artistic'' student in her class. Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked
on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.''
The Plascencia's also have two young children: 6-year-old Daisy and
2-year-old Juan-Pablo.
Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be
tragic for their children. Children who were born in the United States
and who through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation
that has the potential to dramatically alter their lives.
It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children--
Christina, Erika, and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They
are old enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their
teachers, their friends, and their home. They would leave everything
that is familiar to them.
Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and
without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different
culture, language, and way of life.
The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave
their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which
no parents should have to make.
Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are
not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with
the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the
American spirit.

[[Page S98]]

I have sponsored this legislation, and asked my colleagues to support
it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture
wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United
States would extinguish that spirit. I ask my colleagues to support
this private bill on behalf of the Plascencia family.
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. 125

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ALFREDO PLASCENCIA
LOPEZ AND MARIA DEL REFUGIO PLASCENCIA.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio
Plascencia shall each be eligible for the issuance of an
immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing
an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Alfredo Plascencia Lopez or
Maria Del Refugio Plascencia enter the United States before
the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Alfredo
Plascencia Lopez or Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, as
appropriate, shall be considered to have entered and remained
lawfully and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under
section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of
immigrant visas or the application for adjustment of status
are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of immigrant visas or permanent residence to Alfredo
Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, the
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to
reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent fiscal year,
the total number of immigrant visas that are made available
to natives of the country of birth of Alfredo Plascencia
Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia under section 203(a)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or,
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of Alfredo
Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia under
section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 126. A bill for the relief of Claudia Marquez Rico; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia
Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA.
Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by
her parents 16 years ago.
Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger
brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister,
Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is
the only home they know.
Eight years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs.
Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000,
they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car
collided with a truck on an isolated rural road.
The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and
Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are
U.S. citizens with two children of their own and took the Marquez
children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They
supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling
they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor
Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In
2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez
children.
Sadly, the Marquez family received poor legal representation. At the
time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and
qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was
enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship
that would result from deportation under such extraordinary
circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to
abuse, abandonment or neglect.
Today, their younger brother Omar is a U.S. Citizen, due to his
adjustment as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's
previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has
now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration
status.
I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently
answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5
counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears
on his way to being disbarred.
I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that,
without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship.
Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family
for much longer.
Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia finished school. She
supports herself, her 17-year-old sister, Maribel, and her younger
brother Omar. Again, both Maribel and Omar are now U.S. Citizens.
Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited
Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she
has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there
now?
It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by
tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have
come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased
parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching
separation.
Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to
support this private relief bill on behalf of Claudia Rico.
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. 126

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CLAUDIA MARQUEZ
RICO.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Claudia Marquez Rico shall be eligible for issuance of
an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing
an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Claudia Marquez Rico enters
the United States before the filing deadline specified in
subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and
remained lawfully and, if otherwise eligible, shall be
eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is
filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Claudia
Marquez Rico, the Secretary of State shall instruct the
proper officer to reduce by 1, during the current or
subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas
that are made available to natives of the country of birth of
Claudia Marquez Rico under section 203(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to
natives of the country of birth of Claudia Marquez Rico under
section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
(e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for
Certain Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and
sisters of Claudia Marquez Rico shall not, by virtue of such
relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et
seq.).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 127. A bill for the relief of Jacqueline W. Coats; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline
Coats, a 28-year-old widow currently living in San Francisco.
Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to
study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status
lapsed in 2003, and the Department of

[[Page S99]]

Homeland Security began deportation proceedings against her.
Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for
several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a
family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt
to save two young boys from drowning.
The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some
of Mr. Coats' nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as
a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water.
The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr.
Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring
her husband.
Four days before Mr. Coats' death, the couple prepared and signed an
application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately
the petition was not filed until after his death, rendering it invalid.
Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San
Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she
has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported.
Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a
battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference
with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel
like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to . . .
I've been here four years . . . It would be like starting a new life.''
Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late
husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, California. Mrs.
Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own.
Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats' seven brothers and
sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her
first American Thanksgiving . . . I can't imagine looking around and
not seeing her there. She needs to be there.''
The San Francisco and Bay Area community has rallied strong support
for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police
Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats' right
to remain in the country.
Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this
young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting
and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a
country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving,
she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new
family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years.
I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should
not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her
husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without
difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act
that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one
concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a
case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over
legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward
heroism and good.''
I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions
by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It
can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying
wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death.
For these reasons, I reintroduce this private relief immigration bill
and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats.
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. 127

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JACQUELINE W. COATS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be eligible for issuance of
an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing
an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jacqueline W. Coats enters
the United States before the filing deadline specified in
subsection (c), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be considered to
have entered and remained lawfully in the United States and
shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of
the date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is
filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jacqueline W.
Coats, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper
officer to reduce by 1, during the current or subsequent
fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are
made available to natives of the country of birth of
Jacqueline W. Coats under section 203(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to
natives of the country of birth of Jacqueline W. Coats under
section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 128. A bill for the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno,
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private
immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence
status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno and Micaela Lopez Martinez and
their daughter, Adilene Martinez--Mexican nationals now living in San
Francisco, California.
This family embodies the true American success story and I believe
they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary
form of relief as a private bill.
Mr. Martinez came to the United States eighteen years ago from
Mexico. He started working as a bus boy in restaurants in San
Francisco. In 1990, he began working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an
award winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco.
According to the people who worked with him, he ``never made
mistakes, never lost his temper, and never seemed to sweat.''
Over the years, Jose Martinez has worked his way through the ranks.
Today, he is the sous chef at Palio, where he is respected by everyone
in the restaurant, from dishwashers to cooks, busboys to waiters,
bartenders to managers.
Mr. Martinez has unique skills: he is an excellent chef; he is
bilingual; he is a leader in the workplace. He is described as ``an
exemplary employee'' who is not only ``good at his job, but is also a
great boss to his subordinates.''
He and his wife, Micaela, have made a home in San Francisco. Micaela
has been working as a housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of
whom are United States citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, 20, is
undocumented. Adilene recently graduated from the Immaculate Conception
Academy and is attending San Francisco City College.
One of the most compelling reasons for allowing the family to remain
in the United States is that they are eligible for a green card.
Unfortunately, there is such a back log for green cards right now that
even though he has a work permit, owns a home in San Francisco, works
two jobs, and has been in the United States for twenty years with a
clean record, he and his family will be deported.
Mr. Martinez and his family have applied unsuccessfully for legal
status several ways:
In May 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez filed for political asylum. Their
case was denied and a subsequent application for a Cancellation of
Removal was also denied because the immigration court judge could not
find ``requisite hardship'' required for this relief.
Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that
Mr. Martinez's culinary ability was a negative factor--as it indicated
that he could find a job in Mexico.
In 2001, his sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Mr.
Martinez to get a green card. Unfortunately, because of the current
green card backlog, Mr. Martinez has several years to wait before he is
eligible for a green card.

[[Page S100]]

Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio
D'Asti, has petitioned for legal status for Mr. Martinez based on Mr.
Martinez's unique skills as a chef. Although Mr. Martinez's work
petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,
there is a backlog on these visas, and Mr. Martinez is on a waiting
list for a green card through this channel, as well.
Mr. and Mrs. Martinez have no other administrative options available
to them at this point and if deported, they will face a 5 to 10 year
ban from returning to the United States. In addition, this bill remains
the only means for Adilene to gain legal status.
The Martinez family has become an important and valued part of their
community. They are active members of their church, their children's
school, and Comite de Padres Unido, a grassroots immigrant organization
in California.
They volunteer extensively--advocating for safe new parks in the
community for the children, volunteering at their children's school,
and working on a voter registration campaign, even though they are
unable to vote themselves.
In fact, I have received 46 letters of support from teachers, church
members, and members of their community who attest to their honesty,
responsibility, and long-standing commitment to their community. Their
supporters include San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom; former Mayor
Willie Brown; President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors,
Aaron Peskin; and the Director of Immigration Policy at the Immigrant
Legal Resource Center, Mark Silverman.
This family has truly embraced the American dream. I believe their
continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the
values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced
today will enable the Martinez family to continue to make significant
contributions to their community as well as the United States.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. 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. 128

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno,
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez shall each be
deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in,
the United States, and shall be eligible for adjustment of
status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent
residence under section 245 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application
for such adjustment of status.
(b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall
apply only if the application for adjustment of status is
filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting
of permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno,
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez, the Secretary
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3,
during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total
number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives
of the country of the birth of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno,
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez under section
202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1152(e) and 1153(a)), as applicable.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 129. A bill for the relief of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and
Arthur Mkoyan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private
relief bill on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, his wife, Asmik Karapetian and
their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family are Armenian nationals who
have been living and working in Fresno, California, for over a decade.
The story of the Mkoian family is compelling and I believe they merit
Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of
relief as a private bill.
Let me first start with how the Mkoian family arrived in the United
States. While in Armenia, Mr. Mkoian worked as a police sergeant in a
division dealing with vehicle licensing. As a result of his position,
he was offered a bribe to register 20 stolen vehicles.
He refused the bribe and reported the incident to the police chief.
He later learned that his co-worker had registered the vehicles at the
request of the chief.
After he reported the offense, Mr. Mkoian's supervisor informed him
that the department was to undergo an inspection. Mr. Mkoian was
instructed to take a vacation during this time period. Mr. Mkoian
believed that the inspection was a result of the complaint that he had
filed with the higher authorities.
During the inspection, however, Mr. Mkoian worked at a store that he
owned rather than taking a vacation. During that time, individuals kept
entering his store and attempted to damage it and break merchandise.
When he threatened to call the police, he received threatening phone
calls telling him to ``shut up'' or else he would ``regret it.'' Mr.
Mkoian believed that these threats were related to the illegal vehicle
registrations occurring in his department because he had nothing else
to be silent about.
Later that same month, three men grabbed his wife and attempted to
kidnap his child, Arthur, on the street. Mrs. Mkoian was told that her
husband should ``shut up.'' No one suffered any injuries from the
incident. In October 1991, a bottle of gasoline was thrown into the
Mkoian's residence and their house was burned down. The final incident
occurred on April 1, 1992, when four or five men assaulted Mr. Mkoian
in his store. He was beaten and hospitalized for 22 days.
Following that experience, Mr. Mkoian left Armenia for Russia, and
then came to the United States on a visitor's visa in search of a
better life. Two years later he brought his wife Asmik and his then 3-
year-old son Arthur to the United States, also on visitor's visas. The
family applied for political asylum, but the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals denied their request in January 2008. Thus, the family has no
further legal recourse by which to remain in the country other than
this bill.
Since arriving in the United States, the family has thrived. Arthur
is now 18 years old and the family has expanded to include Arsen, who
is a U.S. citizen.
Both Arthur and Arsen are very special children. In high school,
Arthur maintained a 4.0 grade point average and was a valedictorian for
the class of 2008. I first introduced this bill on his graduation day.
Today, Arthur is a freshman at the University of California, Davis.
Arsen is following in his older brother's footsteps. At age 12, he
stands out among his peers and is on the honor roll at Tenaya Middle
School in Fresno.
In addition to raising two outstanding children, Mr. and Mrs. Mkoian
have maintained steady jobs and have devoted time and energy into the
community and their church. Mr. Mkoian is working at HB Medical
Transportation, as a driver in Fresno.
His wife, Asmik, has two jobs as a medical receptionist with Dr.
Kumar in Fresno and as a sales clerk at Gottschalks Department Store.
In addition, she has taken classes at Fresno Community College and has
completed their Medical Assistant Program.
The family are active members of the St. Paul Armenian Church, and
Mr. Mkoian is a member of the PTA of the St. Paul Armenian Saturday
School.
There has been an outpouring of support for this family from their
church, the schools their children attend, and the community at large.
To date, we have received over 200 letters of support for the family
in addition to numerous telephone calls. I also note that I have
letters from both Congressman George Radanovich and Jim Costa,
requesting that I offer this bill for the Mkoian family.
I truly believe that this case warrants our compassion and our
extraordinary consideration.
I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I
ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page S101]]

S. 129

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR RUBEN MKOIAN, ASMIK
KARAPETIAN, AND ARTHUR MKOYAN.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan
shall each be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa
or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence upon filing an application
for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful
permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Ruben Mkoian, Asmik
Karapetian, or Arthur Mkoyan enters the United States before
the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Ruben
Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, or Arthur Mkoyan, as appropriate,
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully in
the United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of
status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this
Act.
(c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and
(b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of
an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status
is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an
immigrant visa or permanent resident status to Ruben Mkoian,
Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan, the Secretary of State
shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, during the
current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and
Arthur Mkoyan under section 203(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the
total number of immigrant visas that are made available to
natives of the country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik
Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan under section 202(e) of such
Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 130. A bill for the relief of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva
Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private
relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva
Gonzalez Gonzalez, and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez. The Rojas
family members are Mexican nationals living in the San Jose area of
California.
The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit
Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of
relief as a private bill.
Mr. Rojas and his wife Ms. Gonzalez originally came to the United
States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In
1995, they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered on
visitors' visas.
The family has since expanded to include a son, Alexis Rojas, now age
16, and a daughter Tania Rojas, now age 14.
Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated
themselves to community involvement, a strong work ethic and
volunteerism. They have been paying taxes since their arrival in 1990.
The family has been described by their friends and colleagues as a
``model American family.'' I would like to tell you some more about
each member of the Rojas family.
Mr. Rojas is a hard-working individual who has been employed by
Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the
past 14 years. Currently, Mr. Rojas works on commercial landscaping
projects. He is well-respected by his supervisor and his peers.
In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time
and talents to provide modern green landscaping and a recreational
jungle gym to Sherman Oaks Community Charter School, where his two
youngest children attend school.
Ms. Gonzalez, in addition to raising her three children, has been
very active in the local community. She has worked to help other
immigrants assimilate to American life by working as a translator and a
tutor for immigrant children at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School
and the Y.M.C.A. Kids after-school program.
She has also coached soccer teams, and has recently directed a
Thanksgiving food drive. Ms. Gonzalez also devotes many hours of her
time to the organization People Acting in Community Together, PACT,
where she works to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose
neighborhoods and schools.
Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family
to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would
have on their three children. Two of the children, Alexis and Tania,
are U.S. citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the United States
since he was a toddler. For these children, this country is the only
country they really know.
Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his
parents, is now 20 and is currently working at Jamba Juice. He
graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007 and is currently taking
classes at San Jose City College.
Alexis and Tania are students at Sherman Oaks Community Charter
School. They are described by their teachers as ``fantastic, wonderful,
and gifted'' students. In fact, the principal at Sherman Oaks has
described all three of the children as ``honest, hard-working academic
honor students'' and have commended all of them for their on-campus
leadership.
It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American
dream, and their continued presence in our country would do so much to
enhance the values we hold dear. I have received 30 letters from the
community in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I
have reintroduced today will enable the Rojas family to continue to
make significant contributions to their community as well as the United
States.
Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. 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. 130

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR JORGE ROJAS
GUTIERREZ, OLIVA GONZALEZ GONZALEZ, AND JORGE
ROJAS GONZALEZ.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of
section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1151), Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and
Jorge Rojas Gonzalez shall each be eligible for the issuance
of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under
section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of
status to lawful permanent resident.
(b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva
Gonzalez Gonzalez, or Jorge Rojas Gonzalez enters the United
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection
(c), Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, or Jorge
Rojas Gonzalez, as appropriate, shall be considered to have
entered and remained lawfully in the United States and shall
be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the
date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application
for the issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for
adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later
than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jorge Rojas
Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez,
the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to
reduce by 3, during the current or subsequent fiscal year,
the total number of immigrant visas that are made available
to natives of the country of birth of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez,
Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez under
section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the
country of birth of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez
Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez under section 202(e) of
such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 131. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide for
enhanced disclosure under an open end credit plan; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Credit Card
Minimum Payment Notification Act.
This bill would help American consumers by requiring banks to notify
credit card holders of the true cost if

[[Page S102]]

they choose to make the minimum payment each month.
Americans today own more credit cards than ever before. The average
American has approximately four credit cards. In 2007, 1 in 7 Americans
held more than 10 cards.
Unsurprisingly, this increase in credit card ownership has resulted
in a dramatic increase in credit card debt.
Over the past 2 decades, Americans' combined credit card debt has
nearly tripled--from $238 billion in 1989 to a staggering $971 billion
in 2008.
Today, the average American household has approximately $10,678 in
credit card debt, up 29 percent from 2000.
Among credit card users, 55 percent carry a balance on their credit
card, a 2 percent increase from last year.
Approximately 1 in 6 families with credit cards pays only the minimum
due every month.
Young Americans are using credit cards to finance everything from
daily expenses to college tuition. Forty-one percent of college
students have a credit card, and, of those, only 65 percent pay their
bills in full every month.
Over the past year, as economic conditions have worsened, it has
become even harder for families to pay off their debt. Whether it is a
mortgage, or tuition, or medical expenses, people are finding it harder
than ever to meet all of their expenses.
In July of this year, 28 percent of people surveyed reported that
their ability to pay off their credit card balances has become more
strained.
This increasing debt is contributing to more and more Americans
filing for bankruptcy.
Ever since the Bankruptcy Reform Act was enacted in 2005, non-
business bankruptcies have been increasing at a rapid pace. The numbers
this year already show a staggering hike. Between September 2007 and
September 2008, Americans filed over one million non-business
bankruptcies, up 30 percent from the previous year.
Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who are turning to
credit cards to finance their expenses. Today's filers have even more
credit card debt than usual--sometimes because they have been
struggling to pay a mortgage and have started using credit cards for
daily expenses.
One family, the Forsyths, found themselves in financial trouble after
moving to a new State for a better job opportunity. Unable to sell
their old house, they rented. But when the renter stopped making
payments, the family became overwhelmed with two mortgage payments.
Credit cards helped at first--providing payment for food, utilities,
and clothes--but the family quickly accumulated $20,000 in debt and was
left with no alternative other than bankruptcy.
The benefits offered by credit cards are attractive, but these cards
also pose enormous financial risk. Dianne McLeod discovered this in a
painful way after back-to-back medical emergencies depleted her
finances. Although credit cards initially enabled her to maintain her
lifestyle, before long these cards and two mortgages meant that she
later found that she was spending more than 40 percent of her monthly
income on interest payments, in addition to thousands of dollars
annually in fees.
Today, credit cardholders receive no information on the impact of
carrying a balance with compounding interest. As a result, too often
individuals make only the minimum payment. After a few years, they find
that the interest on the debt is almost twice the amount of their
original purchases--and they do not know what to do about it.
I first introduced the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act
during the debate on the 2005 bankruptcy bill. As I said then, I
believe the bill failed to balance responsibility and fairness.
Consumers should not be so harshly penalized when they do not have the
basic tools and information they need to make informed choices.
The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would help prevent
this problem by requiring credit card companies to add two items to
each consumer's monthly credit card statement:
A general notice that would read ``Making only the minimum payment
will increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to repay your
balance.''
An individualized notice to credit card holders that specifies
clearly on their bill how much time it will take to repay their debt
and the total amount they will pay if they only make the minimum
payments.
For consumers with variable rate cards, the bill would also require
companies to provide a toll-free number where cardholders can access
credit-counseling services.
The disclosure requirements in the bill would only apply if the
consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt
on the credit card. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be
required on their statement.
Last year, a Gallup--Experian poll found that about 11 percent of
credit cardholders consistently make only the minimum payment on their
cards each month.
Consider what this could mean for the average household.
For example, the U.S. average credit card debt is $10,678. The
average fixed credit card interest rate is approximately 12 percent. If
the 2 percent minimum payment is all that is paid on its debt each
month, it would take more than 31 years to pay off the bill and the
total cost would be $21,052.66--and that's just the minimum assuming
that the family didn't ever charge another dime on that bill.
In other words, the family would need to pay $10,374.66 in interest
just to repay $10,678 in original debt.
For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls
are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 12 percent
interest rate will take over 36 years and more than $28,261 to pay off
if only the minimum payments are made.
Twelve percent is relatively low, average interest rate. Interest
rates around 20 percent are not uncommon on credit cards, and penalty
interest rates can reach as high as 32 percent.
A family that has the average debt with a 20 percent interest rate
and makes the minimum payments will need a lifetime--over 85 years--and
$62,158 to pay off the initial $10,678 bill. That's $51,480 just in
interest--an amount that approaches 5 times the original debt.
Credit cards are an important part of everyday life, and they help
the economy operate more smoothly by giving consumers and merchants a
reliable, convenient way to exchange funds. But the bottom line is that
for many consumers, the two percent minimum payment is a financial
trap.
The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to
ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of
information.
Last month, the Federal Reserve Board approved new rules that will
improve disclosures, but the rules do not go far enough. Under the
rules, starting July 1, 2010, credit card companies will have to warn
consumers about the effect of making minimum payments on the length of
time it will take to pay off their balances. But the warnings may be
only examples and will not show the effect on the amount that consumers
pay over time.
Before approving the final rules, the Federal Reserve Board
interviewed consumers who typically carried credit card balances. Those
consumers found disclosures most helpful when they provided specific
information and included warnings about the amount that would have to
be paid over time.
The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would provide the
straightforward disclosure that consumers find most helpful and most
effective.
This disclosure will ensure that consumers know exactly what it means
for them to carry a balance and make minimum payments, so they can make
informed decisions on credit card use and repayment.
In addition, the burden on banks will be minimal. Calculations like
these are purely formulaic. Credit card companies already complete
similar calculations to determine credit risk and when they tell
consumers what their required minimum payment is each month.
The harsh effects of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are becoming apparent.
During the debate over that bill, I had hoped that Congress would
succeed in balancing the need to incentivize consumers to act
responsibly with the promise of a fresh start for those who fell
impossibly behind. I do not believe that that balance was reached.

[[Page S103]]

I continue to believe that consumers need a meaningful disclosure
informing them of the effects of making minimum payments.
Today, as Americans face increasing struggles with debt and expenses,
the bill is needed more than ever. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
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. 131

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 ``Credit Card Minimum Payment
Notification Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. ENHANCED DISCLOSURE UNDER AN OPEN END CREDIT PLAN.

Section 127(b) of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C.
1637(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(13) Enhanced disclosure under an open end credit plan.--
``(A) In general.--A credit card issuer shall, with each
billing statement provided to a cardholder in a State,
provide the following on the front of the first page of the
billing statement, in type no smaller than that required for
any other required disclosure, but in no case in less than 8-
point capitalized type:
``(i) A written statement in the following form: `Minimum
Payment Warning: Making only the minimum payment will
increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to repay
your balance.'.
``(ii)(I) A written statement providing individualized
information indicating the number of years and months and the
total cost to pay off the entire balance due on an open-end
credit card account, if the cardholder were to pay only the
minimum amount due on the open-end credit card account, based
upon the terms of the credit agreement.
``(II) For purposes of this clause only, if the open-end
credit card account is subject to a variable rate--

``(aa) the creditor may make disclosures based on the rate
for the entire balance as of the date of the disclosure and
indicate that the rate may vary; and
``(bb) the cardholder shall be provided with referrals or,
in the alternative, with the toll free telephone number of
the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (or any
successor thereto) through which the cardholder can be
referred to credit counseling services in, or closest to, the
cardholder's county of residence, which credit counseling
service shall be in good standing with the National
Foundation for Credit Counseling or accredited by the Council
on Accreditation for Children and Family Services (or any
successors thereto).

``(B) Definition of open-end credit card account.--In this
paragraph, the term `open-end credit card account' means an
account in which consumer credit is granted by a creditor
under a plan in which the creditor reasonably contemplates
repeated transactions, the creditor may impose a finance
charge from time to time on an unpaid balance, and the amount
of credit that may be extended to the consumer during the
term of the plan is generally made available to the extent
that any outstanding balance is repaid and up to any limit
set by the creditor.
``(C) Exemptions.--
``(i) Minimum payment of not less than ten percent.--This
paragraph shall not apply in any billing cycle in which the
account agreement requires a minimum payment of not less than
10 percent of the outstanding balance.
``(ii) No finance charges.--This paragraph shall not apply
in any billing cycle in which finance charges are not
imposed.''.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Kerry,
Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Specter, Mr. Schumer, and Ms.
Cantwell):
S. 132. A bill to increase and enhance law enforcement resources
committed to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter
and punish violent gang crime, to protect law-abiding citizens and
communities from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal
penalties for violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hatch,
Bayh, Kerry, Murray, Kyl, and Specter in introducing comprehensive
anti-gang legislation--the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2009.
This bill has changed significantly since Senator Hatch and I began
introducing gang legislation over 10 years ago. The current version of
the bill reflects changes that have been made to comprehensively
address the gang problem, including provisions emphasizing prevention
and intervention programs, as well as enforcement funding.
This bill recognizes that the root causes of gang violence need to be
addressed--identifying successful community programs and then investing
significant resources in schools and religious and community
organizations to prevent young people from joining gangs in the first
place.
The bill constitutes a balanced approach to fighting the gang
problem, with authorization for hundreds of millions of dollars to be
used for proven gang prevention and intervention programs, as well as
strong enforcement provisions.
The rise of criminal street gangs and the effect these gangs are
having on our Nation are two of the fundamental issues facing us today.
This country is in the midst of an epidemic of gang violence that cuts
across every age and every race and plagues our cities, suburbs and
rural areas. This violence often involves teens and children as both
victims and perpetrators.
Almost every day, gang violence is in the news across the country,
with gang-related killings of children and innocent bystanders almost
too numerous to count. A person only needs to pick up a newspaper or
watch the evening news to see how gang violence is affecting our
communities.
A snapshot of gang violence that occurred over a 4-day period in Los
Angeles in March 2008 illustrates how insidious gangs have become.
On March 2, 2008, Jamiel Shaw, a 17-year-old high school football
star, was shot to death just three doors from his home in Mid-City Los
Angeles as he rushed home to make curfew. Two gang members pulled up in
a car, asked if Jamiel was a gang member, and then shot him when he
didn't answer. Jamiel was not in a gang and was a model student and
athlete who was being recruited by Stanford and Rutgers to play
collegiate football. His mother, a sergeant in the U.S. Army who was
serving her second tour of duty in Iraq, had to return home to Los
Angeles to bury her son.
On March 4, 2008, 6-year-old Lavarea Elvy was shot in the head in the
Harbor Gateway area of South Los Angeles as she sat in the family car.
A gang member and a gang associate of a Hispanic street gang have been
charged in this attempted murder.
On March 6, 2008, 13-year-old Anthony Escobar was killed while
picking lemons in a neighbor's yard in the Echo Park area of Los
Angeles. Anthony was not a gang member, and police believe he was
targeted by gang members who came to his neighborhood for no other
reason than to kill someone.
Stories like these are not limited to California. They are becoming
commonplace across the country. Consider the following incidents of
gang violence from across the country:
In February 2008, Julia Steele, an 80-year-old woman from St. Louis,
Missouri, was killed when she was caught in the crossfire of gunfire
between rival gang members. Julia's 80-year-old friend was also injured
when their car slammed into other vehicles after the shooting.
Beginning in May 2008, police in Billings, Montana had to increase
neighborhood patrols due to repeated drive-by shootings conducted by
gang members.
In July 2008, a 7-year-old boy was wounded while playing kickball
near his suburban Roxbury, Massachusetts home. He was shot by an adult
gang member from Boston, who police believe had traveled to the suburbs
for no other reason than to shoot someone.
In October 2008, Christopher Walker, a 16-year-old high school junior
and member of the varsity basketball team, was shot and killed by a
gang member near Henry Ford High School, his high school in Detroit,
Michigan. According to media reports, Chris' death has sparked much
anger in the community over growing gang violence in the area.
Across the country, in rural areas, suburbs, and cities, gang
violence is literally holding neighborhoods hostage and Congress needs
to do something about it. Our national gang problem is immense and
growing, and it is not going away.
On January 18, 2007, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that gang
crime has become ``part of a clear national trend.'' FBI statistics
show that there are over 30,000 criminal street gangs operating in the
United States, with more than one million gang members.

[[Page S104]]

According to the FBI, gangs have an impact on at least 2,500
communities across the Nation. These criminal street gangs engage in
drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, gun trafficking, and murder. They
recruit children and teens, destroy neighborhoods, cripple families,
and kill innocent people.
In California, the State Attorney General has estimated that there
are 171,000 juveniles and adults committed to criminal street gangs and
their way of life. That's greater than the population of 28 California
counties.
From 1992 to 2003, there were more than 7,500 gang-related homicides
reported in California. In 2007, 469 of the 2,258 homicides in
California were gang-related.
Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton put it bluntly:
``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than
the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately
killed 300 people. You can't.''
It's not just a California problem or an issue limited to big cities.
In Chicago, the FBI estimates that there are over 60,000 gang members.
A 2008 DOJ Report notes the rapid spread of gangs and violence to
suburban areas. FBI Director Mueller recently recognized the national
scope of the gang problem when he said: ``Gangs are no longer limited
to Los Angeles. Like a cancer, gangs are spreading to communities
across America.''
Our cities and States need our help--a long-term commitment to combat
gang violence and a Federal helping hand to get our youth out of gangs
and keep them from joining gangs in the first place.
Senator Hatch and I have now been introducing comprehensive Federal
gang legislation for over a decade. Our gang bills have been modified
and refined over the years, most recently in the bill that passed in
the Senate in the 110th Congress by unanimous consent.
The bill that we introduce today is a balanced and measured approach
to dealing with the gang problem. It has no death penalty provisions,
no mandatory minimums, and we have eliminated juvenile justice changes
that previously proved to be an impediment to the larger bill's
passage.
The bill that we offer today provides a Federal helping hand to fight
the gang problem. It provides a comprehensive solution to gang
violence, combining enforcement, prevention, and intervention efforts
in a collaborative approach that has proven effective in models like
Operation Ceasefire.
The bill recognizes that the Federal Government can do more to fight
gangs and that more tools must be made available to Federal law
enforcement agents and prosecutors to stop the epidemic of gang
violence. To this end, the bill establishes new, common sense Federal
gang crimes and tougher Federal penalties.
Existing Federal street gang laws are frankly weak, and are almost
never used. Currently, a person committing a gang crime might have
extra time tacked on to the end of their Federal sentence. That is
because Federal law currently focuses on gang violence only as a
sentencing enhancement, rather than as a crime unto itself.
The bill that I offer today would make it a separate Federal crime
for any criminal street gang member to commit, conspire or attempt to
commit violent crimes--including murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion--
in furtherance of the gang.
The penalties for gang members committing such crimes would increase
considerably.
For gang-related murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or
maiming, the penalties would range up to life imprisonment.
For any other serious violent felony, the penalty would range up to
30 years.
For other crimes of violence--defined as the actual or intended use
of physical force against the person of another--the penalty could
bring up to 20 years in prison.
The bill also creates a new crime for recruiting juveniles and adults
into a criminal street gang, with a penalty of up to 10 years, or if
the recruiting involved a juvenile or recruiting from prison, up to 20
years.
It also creates new Federal crimes for committing violent crimes in
connection with drug trafficking, and increases existing penalties for
violent crimes in aid of racketeering.
Finally, the bill also makes a host of other violent crime reforms,
including closing a loophole that allows carjackers to avoid
convictions, increasing the penalties for those who use guns in violent
crimes or transfer guns knowing they will be used in crimes, and
limiting bail for violent felons who possess firearms.
But the bill also recognizes that we cannot simply arrest our way out
of the gang problem. It also focuses on prevention and intervention
strategies to prevent our youth from joining street gangs and to give
existing gang members a way out of that lifestyle.
Specifically, the bill would authorize over $1 billion in new funds
over the next 5 years to address the gang problem, including: $411.5
million to fund gang prevention and intervention programs, like
Operation Ceasefire, a proven gang prevention and intervention program
successfully used in communities across the country; $187.5 million to
establish High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas--Federal,
State, and local law enforcement task forces to combat gangs and
implement prevention programs; $100 million to fund the DOJ's Project
Safe Neighborhood Program, the Federal Government's primary anti-gang
initiative; $50 million for the Project Safe Streets Program, the FBI's
primary gang investigation tool; $100 million for more prosecutors,
technology, and equipment for gang investigations; $270 million for
State witness protection programs in gang cases.
This balanced approach--of prevention and intervention plus common
sense enforcement--will send a clear message to gang members: a new day
has arrived and the Federal Government will no longer sit on the
sidelines while gang violence engulfs the country.
This bill will provide gang members with new opportunities, with
schools and social services agencies empowered to make alternatives to
gangs a realistic option. But if gang members continue to engage in
violence, they will face new and serious Federal consequences.
For more than 10 years now, Senator Hatch and I have been trying to
pass Federal anti-gang legislation. There have been times when we have
gotten close, including last session when the Senate passed this same
bill. Unfortunately, while Congress as a whole has failed to act,
violent street gangs have only expanded nationwide and become more
empowered and entrenched in other States and communities.
I believe this bill can again pass in the Senate and be enacted into
law. The time has arrived for us to finally address this problem, and I
believe this bill is well-suited to help solve it.
I urge my colleagues to favorably consider this legislation in the
111th Congress.
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. 132

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 ``Gang Abatement and
Prevention Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Table of contents.
Sec. 3. Findings.

TITLE I--NEW FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS NEEDED TO FIGHT VIOLENT NATIONAL,
INTERNATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL GANGS THAT AFFECT INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE

Sec. 101. Revision and extension of penalties related to criminal
street gang activity.

TITLE II--VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS TO REDUCE GANG VIOLENCE

Sec. 201. Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity.
Sec. 202. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime.
Sec. 203. Expansion of rebuttable presumption against release of
persons charged with firearms offenses.
Sec. 204. Statute of limitations for violent crime.
Sec. 205. Study of hearsay exception for forfeiture by wrongdoing.
Sec. 206. Possession of firearms by dangerous felons.

[[Page S105]]

Sec. 207. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 208. Amendments relating to violent crime.
Sec. 209. Publicity campaign about new criminal penalties.
Sec. 210. Statute of limitations for terrorism offenses.
Sec. 211. Crimes committed in Indian country or exclusive Federal
jurisdiction as racketeering predicates.
Sec. 212. Predicate crimes for authorization of interception of wire,
oral, and electronic communications.
Sec. 213. Clarification of Hobbs Act.
Sec. 214. Interstate tampering with or retaliation against a witness,
victim, or informant in a State criminal proceeding.
Sec. 215. Amendment of sentencing guidelines.

TITLE III--INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES TO DETER AND PREVENT SERIOUSLY
AT-RISK YOUTH FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GANGS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Sec. 301. Designation of and assistance for high intensity gang
activity areas.
Sec. 302. Gang prevention grants.
Sec. 303. Enhancement of Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative to
improve enforcement of criminal laws against violent
gangs.
Sec. 304. Additional resources needed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to investigate and prosecute violent
criminal street gangs.
Sec. 305. Grants to prosecutors and law enforcement to combat violent
crime.
Sec. 306. Expansion and reauthorization of the mentoring initiative for
system involved youth.
Sec. 307. Demonstration grants to encourage creative approaches to gang
activity and after-school programs.
Sec. 308. Short-Term State Witness Protection Section.
Sec. 309. Witness protection services.
Sec. 310. Expansion of Federal witness relocation and protection
program.
Sec. 311. Family abduction prevention grant program.
Sec. 312. Study on adolescent development and sentences in the Federal
system.
Sec. 313. National youth anti-heroin media campaign.
Sec. 314. Training at the national advocacy center.

TITLE IV--CRIME PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

Sec. 401. Short title.
Sec. 402. Purposes.
Sec. 403. Definitions.
Sec. 404. National Commission on Public Safety Through Crime
Prevention.
Sec. 405. Innovative crime prevention and intervention strategy grants.

SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) violent crime and drug trafficking are pervasive
problems at the national, State, and local level;
(2) according to recent Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Uniform Crime Reports, violent crime in the United States is
on the rise, with a 2.3 percent increase in violent crime in
2005 (the largest increase in the United States in 15 years)
and an even larger 3.7 percent jump during the first 6 months
of 2006, and the Police Executive Research Forum reports
that, among jurisdictions providing information, homicides
are up 10.21 percent, robberies are up 12.27 percent, and
aggravated assaults with firearms are up 9.98 percent since
2004;
(3) these disturbing rises in violent crime are
attributable in part to the spread of criminal street gangs
and the willingness of gang members to commit acts of
violence and drug trafficking offenses;
(4) according to a recent National Drug Threat Assessment,
criminal street gangs are responsible for much of the retail
distribution of the cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and
other illegal drugs being distributed in rural and urban
communities throughout the United States;
(5) gangs commit acts of violence or drug offenses for
numerous motives, such as membership in or loyalty to the
gang, for protecting gang territory, and for profit;
(6) gang presence and intimidation, and the organized and
repetitive nature of the crimes that gangs and gang members
commit, has a pernicious effect on the free flow of
interstate commercial activities and directly affects the
freedom and security of communities plagued by gang activity,
diminishing the value of property, inhibiting the desire of
national and multinational corporations to transact business
in those communities, and in a variety of ways directly and
substantially affecting interstate and foreign commerce;
(7) gangs often recruit and utilize minors to engage in
acts of violence and other serious offenses out of a belief
that the criminal justice systems are more lenient on
juvenile offenders;
(8) gangs often intimidate and threaten witnesses to
prevent successful prosecutions;
(9) gangs prey upon and incorporate minors into their
ranks, exploiting the fact that adolescents have immature
decision-making capacity, therefore, gang activity and
recruitment can be reduced and deterred through increased
vigilance, appropriate criminal penalties, partnerships
between Federal and State and local law enforcement, and
proactive prevention and intervention efforts, particularly
targeted at juveniles and young adults, prior to and even
during gang involvement;
(10) State and local prosecutors and law enforcement
officers, in hearings before the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate and elsewhere, have enlisted the help of
Congress in the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of
gang crimes and in the protection of witnesses and victims of
gang crimes; and
(11) because State and local prosecutors and law
enforcement have the expertise, experience, and connection to
the community that is needed to assist in combating gang
violence, consultation and coordination between Federal,
State, and local law enforcement and collaboration with other
community agencies is critical to the successful prosecutions
of criminal street gangs and reduction of gang problems.

TITLE I--NEW FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAWS NEEDED TO FIGHT VIOLENT NATIONAL,
INTERNATIONAL, REGIONAL, AND LOCAL GANGS THAT AFFECT INTERSTATE AND
FOREIGN COMMERCE

SEC. 101. REVISION AND EXTENSION OF PENALTIES RELATED TO
CRIMINAL STREET GANG ACTIVITY.

(a) In General.--Chapter 26 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:

``CHAPTER 26--CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

``Sec.
``521. Definitions.
``522. Criminal street gang prosecutions.
``523. Recruitment of persons to participate in a criminal street gang.
``524. Violent crimes in furtherance of criminal street gangs.
``525. Forfeiture.

``SEC. 521. DEFINITIONS.

``In this chapter:
``(1) Criminal street gang.--The term `criminal street
gang' means a formal or informal group, organization, or
association of 5 or more individuals--
``(A) each of whom has committed at least 1 gang crime; and
``(B) who collectively commit 3 or more gang crimes (not
less than 1 of which is a serious violent felony), in
separate criminal episodes (not less than 1 of which occurs
after the date of enactment of the Gang Abatement and
Prevention Act of 2009, and the last of which occurs not
later than 5 years after the commission of a prior gang crime
(excluding any time of imprisonment for that individual)).
``(2) Gang crime.--The term `gang crime' means an offense
under Federal law punishable by imprisonment for more than 1
year, or a felony offense under State law that is punishable
by a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more in any of the
following categories:
``(A) A crime that has as an element the use, attempted
use, or threatened use of physical force against the person
of another, or is burglary, arson, kidnapping, or extortion.
``(B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, or
tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or
informant.
``(C) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing,
distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or
otherwise trafficking in a controlled substance or listed
chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
``(D) Any conduct punishable under--
``(i) section 844 (relating to explosive materials);
``(ii) subsection (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying
conviction is a violent felony or a serious drug offense (as
those terms are defined in section 924(e)), (g)(2), (g)(3),
(g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), (g)(9), (g)(10), (g)(11), (i), (j),
(k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating
to unlawful acts);
``(iii) subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or
(n) of section 924 (relating to penalties);
``(iv) section 930 (relating to possession of firearms and
dangerous weapons in Federal facilities);
``(v) section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, or
possession of body armor by violent felons);
``(vi) sections 1028 and 1029 (relating to fraud, identity
theft, and related activity in connection with identification
documents or access devices);
``(vii) section 1084 (relating to transmission of wagering
information);
``(viii) section 1952 (relating to interstate and foreign
travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises);
``(ix) section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary
instruments);
``(x) section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary
transactions in property derived from specified unlawful
activity); or
``(xi) sections 2312 through 2315 (relating to interstate
transportation of stolen motor vehicles or stolen property).
``(E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating to
bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277
(relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the
United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of
aliens for immoral purposes) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324, 1327, and 1328).

[[Page S106]]

``(F) Any crime involving aggravated sexual abuse, sexual
assault, pimping or pandering involving prostitution, sexual
exploitation of children (including sections 2251, 2251A,
2252 and 2260), peonage, slavery, or trafficking in persons
(including sections 1581 through 1592) and sections 2421
through 2427 (relating to transport for illegal sexual
activity).
``(3) Minor.--The term `minor' means an individual who is
less than 18 years of age.
``(4) Serious violent felony.--The term `serious violent
felony' has the meaning given that term in section 3559.
``(5) State.--The term `State' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and
any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United
States.

``SEC. 522. CRIMINAL STREET GANG PROSECUTIONS.

``(a) Street Gang Crime.--It shall be unlawful for any
person to knowingly commit, or conspire, threaten, or attempt
to commit, a gang crime for the purpose of furthering the
activities of a criminal street gang, or gaining entrance to
or maintaining or increasing position in a criminal street
gang, if the activities of that criminal street gang occur in
or affect interstate or foreign commerce.
``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a)
shall be fined under this title and--
``(1) for murder, kidnapping, conduct that would violate
section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or
maiming, imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
``(2) for any other serious violent felony, by imprisonment
for not more than 30 years;
``(3) for any crime of violence that is not a serious
violent felony, by imprisonment for not more than 20 years;
and
``(4) for any other offense, by imprisonment for not more
than 10 years.

``SEC. 523. RECRUITMENT OF PERSONS TO PARTICIPATE IN A
CRIMINAL STREET GANG.

``(a) Prohibited Acts.--It shall be unlawful to knowingly
recruit, employ, solicit, induce, command, coerce, or cause
another person to be or remain as a member of a criminal
street gang, or attempt or conspire to do so, with the intent
to cause that person to participate in a gang crime, if the
defendant travels in interstate or foreign commerce in the
course of the offense, or if the activities of that criminal
street gang are in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.
``(b) Penalties.--Whoever violates subsection (a) shall--
``(1) if the person recruited, employed, solicited,
induced, commanded, coerced, or caused to participate or
remain in a criminal street gang is a minor--
``(A) be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than
10 years, or both; and
``(B) at the discretion of the sentencing judge, be liable
for any costs incurred by the Federal Government, or by any
State or local government, for housing, maintaining, and
treating the minor until the person attains the age of 18
years;
``(2) if the person who recruits, employs, solicits,
induces, commands, coerces, or causes the participation or
remaining in a criminal street gang is incarcerated at the
time the offense takes place, be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and
``(3) in any other case, be fined under this title,
imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
``(c) Consecutive Nature of Penalties.--Any term of
imprisonment imposed under subsection (b)(2) shall be
consecutive to any term imposed for any other offense.

``SEC. 524. VIOLENT CRIMES IN FURTHERANCE OF CRIMINAL STREET
GANGS.

``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person, for
the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or
increasing position in, or in furtherance of, or in
association with, a criminal street gang, or as consideration
for anything of pecuniary value to or from a criminal street
gang, to knowingly commit or threaten to commit against any
individual a crime of violence that is an offense under
Federal law punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year
or a felony offense under State law that is punishable by a
term of imprisonment of 5 years or more, or attempt or
conspire to do so, if the activities of the criminal street
gang occur in or affect interstate or foreign commerce.
``(b) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (a)
shall be punished by a fine under this title and--
``(1) for murder, kidnapping, conduct that would violate
section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or
maiming, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
``(2) for a serious violent felony other than one described
in paragraph (1), by imprisonment for not more than 30 years;
and
``(3) in any other case, by imprisonment for not more than
20 years.

``SEC. 525. FORFEITURE.

``(a) Criminal Forfeiture.--A person who is convicted of a
violation of this chapter shall forfeit to the United
States--
``(1) any property used, or intended to be used, in any
manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission
of, the violation; and
``(2) any property constituting, or derived from, any
proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the
violation.
``(b) Procedures Applicable.--Pursuant to section 2461(c)
of title 28, the provisions of section 413 of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsections (a) and
(d) of that section, shall apply to the criminal forfeiture
of property under this section.''.
(b) Amendment Relating to Priority of Forfeiture Over
Orders for Restitution.--Section 3663(c)(4) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by striking ``chapter 46 or''
and inserting ``chapter 26, chapter 46, or''.
(c) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18,
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, section 522
(relating to criminal street gang prosecutions), 523
(relating to recruitment of persons to participate in a
criminal street gang), and 524 (relating to violent crimes in
furtherance of criminal street gangs)'' before ``, section
541''.
(d) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Prohibiting
Prisoner Communications.--Section 3582(d) of title 18, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``chapter 26 (criminal street gangs),''
before ``chapter 95''; and
(2) by inserting ``a criminal street gang or'' before ``an
illegal enterprise''.

TITLE II--VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS TO REDUCE GANG VIOLENCE

SEC. 201. VIOLENT CRIMES IN AID OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY.

Section 1959(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
(A) by inserting ``or in furtherance or in aid of an
enterprise engaged in racketeering activity,'' before
``murders,''; and
(B) by inserting ``engages in conduct that would violate
section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,'' before
``maims,'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``conduct that would
violate section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special
maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,
or maiming,'' after ``kidnapping,'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``maiming'' and inserting
``assault resulting in serious bodily injury'';
(4) in paragraph (3), by striking ``or assault resulting in
serious bodily injury'';
(5) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``five years'' and inserting ``10 years'';
and
(B) by adding ``and'' at the end; and
(6) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and inserting the
following:
``(5) for attempting or conspiring to commit any offense
under this section, by the same penalties (other than the
death penalty) as those prescribed for the offense, the
commission of which was the object of the attempt or
conspiracy.''.

SEC. 202. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING
AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

(a) In General.--Part D of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 424. MURDER AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED DURING
AND IN RELATION TO A DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.

``(a) In General.--Whoever, during and in relation to any
drug trafficking crime, knowingly commits any crime of
violence against any individual that is an offense under
Federal law punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year
or a felony offense under State law that is punishable by a
term of imprisonment of 5 years or more, or threatens,
attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by a fine
under title 18, United States Code, and--
``(1) for murder, kidnapping, conduct that would violate
section 2241 if the conduct occurred in the special maritime
and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or
maiming, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life;
``(2) for a serious violent felony (as defined in section
3559 of title 18, United States Code) other than one
described in paragraph (1) by imprisonment for not more than
30 years;
``(3) for a crime of violence that is not a serious violent
felony, by imprisonment for not more than 20 years; and
``(4) in any other case by imprisonment for not more than
10 years.
``(b) Venue.--A prosecution for a violation of this section
may be brought in--
``(1) the judicial district in which the murder or other
crime of violence occurred; or
``(2) any judicial district in which the drug trafficking
crime may be prosecuted.
``(c) Definitions.--In this section--
``(1) the term `crime of violence' has the meaning given
that term in section 16 of title 18, United States Code; and
``(2) the term `drug trafficking crime' has the meaning
given that term in section 924(c)(2) of title 18, United
States Code.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents for the
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-513; 84 Stat. 1236) is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 423, the following:

``Sec. 424. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in
relation to a drug trafficking crime.''.

SEC. 203. EXPANSION OF REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST RELEASE
OF PERSONS CHARGED WITH FIREARMS OFFENSES.

Section 3142(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
in the matter following

[[Page S107]]

paragraph (3), by inserting after ``that the person
committed'' the following: ``an offense under subsection
(g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a drug trafficking
crime or crime of violence (as those terms are defined in
section 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8),
(g)(9), (g)(10), or (g)(11) of section 922,''.

SEC. 204. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 3299A. Violent crime offenses

``No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any
noncapital felony crime of violence, including any
racketeering activity or gang crime which involves any crime
of violence, unless the indictment is found or the
information is instituted not later than 10 years after the
date on which the alleged violation occurred or the
continuing offense was completed.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``3299A. Violent crime offenses.''.

SEC. 205. STUDY OF HEARSAY EXCEPTION FOR FORFEITURE BY
WRONGDOING.

The Judicial Conference of the United States shall study
the necessity and desirability of amending section 804(b) of
the Federal Rules of Evidence to permit the introduction of
statements against a party by a witness who has been made
unavailable where it is reasonably foreseeable by that party
that wrongdoing would make the declarant unavailable.

SEC. 206. POSSESSION OF FIREARMS BY DANGEROUS FELONS.

(a) In General.--Section 924(e) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the
following:
``(1) In the case of a person who violates section 922(g)
of this title and has previously been convicted by any court
referred to in section 922(g)(1) of a violent felony or a
serious drug offense shall--
``(A) in the case of 1 such prior conviction, where a
period of not more than 10 years has elapsed since the later
of the date of conviction and the date of release of the
person from imprisonment for that conviction, be imprisoned
for not more than 15 years, fined under this title, or both;
``(B) in the case of 2 such prior convictions, committed on
occasions different from one another, and where a period of
not more than 10 years has elapsed since the later of the
date of conviction and the date of release of the person from
imprisonment for the most recent such conviction, be
imprisoned for not more than 20 years, fined under this
title, or both; and
``(C) in the case of 3 such prior convictions, committed on
occasions different from one another, and where a period of
not more than 10 years has elapsed since the later of date of
conviction and the date of release of the person from
imprisonment for the most recent such conviction, be
imprisoned for any term of years not less than 15 years or
for life and fined under this title, and notwithstanding any
other provision of law, the court shall not suspend the
sentence of, or grant a probationary sentence to, such person
with respect to the conviction under section 922(g).''.
(b) Amendment to Sentencing Guidelines.--Pursuant to its
authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States
Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines to provide for an appropriate
increase in the offense level for violations of section
922(g) of title 18, United States Code, in accordance with
section 924(e) of that title 18, as amended by subsection
(a).

SEC. 207. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

The matter preceding paragraph (1) in section 922(d) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``,
transfer,'' after ``sell''.

SEC. 208. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) Carjacking.--Section 2119 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``,
with the intent'' and all that follows through ``to do so,
shall'' and inserting ``knowingly takes a motor vehicle that
has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or
foreign commerce from the person of another by force and
violence or by intimidation, causing a reasonable
apprehension of fear of death or serious bodily injury in an
individual, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``15 years'' and
inserting ``20 years'';
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or imprisoned not more
than 25 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for
any term of years or for life''; and
(4) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``the person takes or
attempts to take the motor vehicle in violation of this
section with intent to cause death or cause serious bodily
injury, and'' before ``death results''.
(b) Clarification and Strengthening of Prohibition on
Illegal Gun Transfers to Commit Drug Trafficking Crime or
Crime of Violence.--Section 924(h) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
``(h) Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm that has moved
in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce,
knowing that the firearm will be used to commit, or possessed
in furtherance of, a crime of violence (as defined in
subsection (c)(3)) or drug trafficking crime (as defined in
subsection (c)(2)) shall be fined under this title and
imprisoned not more than 20 years.''.
(c) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Relating to
Limitations on Criminal Association.--Section 3582(d) of
title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by inserting ``chapter 26 of this title (criminal
street gang prosecutions) or in'' after ``felony set forth
in''; and
(2) by inserting ``a criminal street gang or'' before ``an
illegal enterprise''.
(d) Conspiracy Penalty.--Section 371 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by striking ``five years, or both.''
and inserting ``10 years (unless the maximum penalty for the
crime that served as the object of the conspiracy has a
maximum penalty of imprisonment of less than 10 years, in
which case the maximum penalty under this section shall be
the penalty for such crime), or both. This paragraph does not
supersede any other penalty specifically set forth for a
conspiracy offense.''.

SEC. 209. PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN ABOUT NEW CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

The Attorney General is authorized to conduct media
campaigns in any area designated as a high intensity gang
activity area under section 301 and any area with existing
and emerging problems with gangs, as needed, to educate
individuals in that area about the changes in criminal
penalties made by this Act, and shall report to the Committee
on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives the amount of
expenditures and all other aspects of the media campaign.

SEC. 210. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TERRORISM OFFENSES.

Section 3286(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Eight-Year''
and inserting ``Ten-Year''; and
(2) in the first sentence, by striking ``8 years'' and
inserting ``10 years''.

SEC. 211. CRIMES COMMITTED IN INDIAN COUNTRY OR EXCLUSIVE
FEDERAL JURISDICTION AS RACKETEERING
PREDICATES.

Section 1961(1)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``, or would have been so chargeable if
the act or threat (other than gambling) had not been
committed in Indian country (as defined in section 1151) or
in any other area of exclusive Federal jurisdiction,'' after
``chargeable under State law''.

SEC. 212. PREDICATE CRIMES FOR AUTHORIZATION OF INTERCEPTION
OF WIRE, ORAL, AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

Section 2516(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' and the end of paragraph (r);
(2) by redesignating paragraph (s) as paragraph (u); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (r) the following:
``(s) any violation of section 424 of the Controlled
Substances Act (relating to murder and other violent crimes
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime);
``(t) any violation of section 522, 523, or 524 (relating
to criminal street gangs); or''.

SEC. 213. CLARIFICATION OF HOBBS ACT.

Section 1951(b) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``including the unlawful
impersonation of a law enforcement officer (as that term is
defined in section 245(c) of this title),'' after ``by means
of actual or threatened force,''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``including the unlawful
impersonation of a law enforcement officer (as that term is
defined in section 245(c) of this title),'' after ``by
wrongful use of actual or threatened force,''.

SEC. 214. INTERSTATE TAMPERING WITH OR RETALIATION AGAINST A
WITNESS, VICTIM, OR INFORMANT IN A STATE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDING.

(a) In General.--Chapter 73 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1513 the
following:

``Sec. 1513A. Interstate tampering with or retaliation
against a witness, victim, or informant in a state criminal
proceeding

``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person--
``(1) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or to
use the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign
commerce, or to employ, use, command, counsel, persuade,
induce, entice, or coerce any individual to do the same, with
the intent to--
``(A) use or threaten to use any physical force against any
witness, informant, victim, or other participant in a State
criminal proceeding in an effort to influence or prevent
participation in such proceeding, or to retaliate against
such individual for participating in such proceeding; or
``(B) threaten, influence, or prevent from testifying any
actual or prospective witness in a State criminal proceeding;
or
``(2) to attempt or conspire to commit an offense under
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).
``(b) Penalties.--
``(1) Use of force.--Any person who violates subsection
(a)(1)(A) by use of force--
``(A) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 20 years, or both; and
``(B) if death, kidnapping, or serious bodily injury
results, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any
term of years or for life, or both.

[[Page S108]]

``(2) Other violations.--Any person who violates subsection
(a)(1)(A) by threatened use of force or violates paragraph
(1)(B) or (2) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this
title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
``(c) Venue.--A prosecution under this section may be
brought in the district in which the official proceeding
(whether or not pending, about to be instituted or was
completed) was intended to be affected or was completed, or
in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense
occurred.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1512 is amended, in the
section heading, by adding at the end the following: ``in a
Federal proceeding''.
(c) Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections for chapter 73
of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) by striking the item relating to section 1512 and
inserting the following:

``1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant in a Federal
proceeding.'';
and
(2) by inserting after the item relating to section 1513
the following:

``1513A. Interstate tampering with or retaliation against a witness,
victim, or informant in a State criminal proceeding.''.

SEC. 215. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

(a) In General.--Pursuant to its authority under section
994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with
this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall
review and, if appropriate, amend its guidelines and policy
statements to conform with this title and the amendments made
by this title.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the United
States Sentencing Commission shall--
(1) establish new guidelines and policy statements, as
warranted, in order to implement new or revised criminal
offenses under this title and the amendments made by this
title;
(2) consider the extent to which the guidelines and policy
statements adequately address--
(A) whether the guidelines offense levels and
enhancements--
(i) are sufficient to deter and punish such offenses; and
(ii) are adequate in view of the statutory increases in
penalties contained in this title and the amendments made by
this title; and
(B) whether any existing or new specific offense
characteristics should be added to reflect congressional
intent to increase penalties for the offenses set forth in
this title and the amendments made by this title;
(3) ensure that specific offense characteristics are added
to increase the guideline range--
(A) by at least 2 offense levels, if a criminal defendant
committing a gang crime or gang recruiting offense was an
alien who was present in the United States in violation of
section 275 or 276 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1325 and 1326) at the time the offense was committed;
and
(B) by at least 4 offense levels, if such defendant had
also previously been ordered removed or deported under the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) on
the grounds of having committed a crime;
(4) determine under what circumstances a sentence of
imprisonment imposed under this title or the amendments made
by this title shall run consecutively to any other sentence
of imprisonment imposed for any other crime, except that the
Commission shall ensure that a sentence of imprisonment
imposed under section 424 of the Controlled Substances Act
(21 U.S.C. 841 et seq.), as added by this Act, shall run
consecutively, to an extent that the Sentencing Commission
determines appropriate, to the sentence imposed for the
underlying drug trafficking offense;
(5) account for any aggravating or mitigating circumstances
that might justify exceptions to the generally applicable
sentencing ranges;
(6) ensure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives, other sentencing guidelines, and statutes;
(7) make any necessary and conforming changes to the
sentencing guidelines and policy statements; and
(8) ensure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes
of sentencing set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18,
United States Code.

TITLE III--INCREASED FEDERAL RESOURCES TO DETER AND PREVENT SERIOUSLY
AT-RISK YOUTH FROM JOINING ILLEGAL STREET GANGS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

SEC. 301. DESIGNATION OF AND ASSISTANCE FOR HIGH INTENSITY
GANG ACTIVITY AREAS.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means a Governor of a
State, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the tribal
leader of an Indian tribe, or the chief executive of a
Commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) High intensity gang activity area.--The term ``high
intensity gang activity area'' or ``HIGAA'' means an area
within 1 or more States or Indian country that is designated
as a high intensity gang activity area under subsection
(b)(1).
(3) Indian country.--The term ``Indian country'' has the
meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United
States Code.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b(e)).
(5) State.--The term ``State'' means a State of the United
States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth,
territory, or possession of the United States.
(6) Tribal leader.--The term ``tribal leader'' means the
chief executive officer representing the governing body of an
Indian tribe.
(b) High Intensity Gang Activity Areas.--
(1) Designation.--The Attorney General, after consultation
with the Governors of appropriate States, may designate as
high intensity gang activity areas, specific areas that are
located within 1 or more States, which may consist of 1 or
more municipalities, counties, or other jurisdictions as
appropriate.
(2) Assistance.--In order to provide Federal assistance to
high intensity gang activity areas, the Attorney General
shall--
(A) establish local collaborative working groups, which
shall include--
(i) criminal street gang enforcement teams, consisting of
Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement
authorities, for the coordinated investigation, disruption,
apprehension, and prosecution of criminal street gangs and
offenders in each high intensity gang activity area;
(ii) educational, community, and faith leaders in the area;
(iii) service providers in the community, including those
experienced at reaching youth and adults who have been
involved in violence and violent gangs or groups, to provide
gang-involved or seriously at-risk youth with positive
alternatives to gangs and other violent groups and to address
the needs of those who leave gangs and other violent groups,
and those reentering society from prison; and
(iv) evaluation teams to research and collect information,
assess data, recommend adjustments, and generally assure the
accountability and effectiveness of program implementation;
(B) direct the reassignment or detailing from any Federal
department or agency (subject to the approval of the head of
that department or agency, in the case of a department or
agency other than the Department of Justice) of personnel to
each criminal street gang enforcement team;
(C) direct the reassignment or detailing of representatives
from--
(i) the Department of Justice;
(ii) the Department of Education;
(iii) the Department of Labor;
(iv) the Department of Health and Human Services;
(v) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
(vi) any other Federal department or agency (subject to the
approval of the head of that department or agency, in the
case of a department or agency other than the Department of
Justice) to each high intensity gang activity area to
identify and coordinate efforts to access Federal programs
and resources available to provide gang prevention,
intervention, and reentry assistance;
(D) prioritize and administer the Federal program and
resource requests made by the local collaborative working
group established under subparagraph (A) for each high
intensity gang activity area;
(E) provide all necessary funding for the operation of each
local collaborative working group in each high intensity gang
activity area; and
(F) provide all necessary funding for national and regional
meetings of local collaborative working groups, criminal
street gang enforcement teams, and educational, community,
social service, faith-based, and all other related
organizations, as needed, to ensure effective operation of
such teams through the sharing of intelligence and best
practices and for any other related purpose.
(3) Composition of criminal street gang enforcement team.--
Each team established under paragraph (2)(A)(i) shall consist
of agents and officers, where feasible, from--
(A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
(B) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
(C) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives;
(D) the United States Marshals Service;
(E) the Department of Homeland Security;
(F) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
(G) State, local, and, where appropriate, tribal law
enforcement;
(H) Federal, State, and local prosecutors; and
(I) the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Law Enforcement
Services, where appropriate.
(4) Criteria for designation.--In considering an area for
designation as a high intensity gang activity area under this
section, the Attorney General shall consider--
(A) the current and predicted levels of gang crime activity
in the area;
(B) the extent to which qualitative and quantitative data
indicate that violent crime in the area is related to
criminal street gang activity, such as murder, robbery,
assaults, carjacking, arson, kidnapping, extortion, drug
trafficking, and other criminal activity;
(C) the extent to which State, local, and, where
appropriate, tribal law enforcement agencies, schools,
community groups, social

[[Page S109]]

service agencies, job agencies, faith-based organizations,
and other organizations have committed resources to--
(i) respond to the gang crime problem; and
(ii) participate in a gang enforcement team;
(D) the extent to which a significant increase in the
allocation of Federal resources would enhance local response
to the gang crime activities in the area; and
(E) any other criteria that the Attorney General considers
to be appropriate.
(5) Relation to hidtas.--If the Attorney General
establishes a high intensity gang activity area that
substantially overlaps geographically with any existing high
intensity drug trafficking area (in this section referred to
as a ``HIDTA''), the Attorney General shall direct the local
collaborative working group for that high intensity gang
activity area to enter into an agreement with the Executive
Board for that HIDTA, providing that--
(A) the Executive Board of that HIDTA shall establish a
separate high intensity gang activity area law enforcement
steering committee, and select (with a preference for
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that are
within the geographic area of that high intensity gang
activity area) the members of that committee, subject to the
concurrence of the Attorney General;
(B) the high intensity gang activity area law enforcement
steering committee established under subparagraph (A) shall
administer the funds provided under subsection (g)(1) for the
criminal street gang enforcement team, after consulting with,
and consistent with the goals and strategies established by,
that local collaborative working group;
(C) the high intensity gang activity area law enforcement
steering committee established under subparagraph (A) shall
select, from Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies within the geographic area of that high intensity
gang activity area, the members of the Criminal Street Gang
Enforcement Team, in accordance with paragraph (3); and
(D) the Criminal Street Gang Enforcement Team of that high
intensity gang activity area, and its law enforcement
steering committee, may, with approval of the Executive Board
of the HIDTA with which it substantially overlaps, utilize
the intelligence-sharing, administrative, and other resources
of that HIDTA.
(c) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 1 of each year,
the Attorney General shall submit a report to the appropriate
committees of Congress and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget and the Domestic Policy Council that
describes, for each designated high intensity gang activity
area--
(A) the specific long-term and short-term goals and
objectives;
(B) the measurements used to evaluate the performance of
the high intensity gang activity area in achieving the long-
term and short-term goals;
(C) the age, composition, and membership of gangs;
(D) the number and nature of crimes committed by gangs and
gang members;
(E) the definition of the term ``gang'' used to compile
that report; and
(F) the programmatic outcomes and funding need of the high
intensity gang area, including--
(i) an evidence-based analysis of the best practices and
outcomes from the work of the relevant local collaborative
working group; and
(ii) an analysis of whether Federal resources distributed
meet the needs of the high intensity gang activity area and,
if any programmatic funding shortfalls exist, recommendations
for programs or funding to meet such shortfalls.
(2) Appropriate committees.--In this subsection, the term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(A) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on
Appropriations, and the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on
Appropriations, the Committee on Education and Labor, and the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of
Representatives.
(d) Additional Assistant United States Attorneys.--The
Attorney General is authorized to hire 94 additional
Assistant United States attorneys, and nonattorney
coordinators and paralegals as necessary, to carry out the
provisions of this section.
(e) Additional Defense Counsel.--In each of the fiscal
years 2009 through 2013, the Director of the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts is authorized to hire 71
additional attorneys, nonattorney coordinators, and
investigators, as necessary, in Federal Defender Programs and
Federal Community Defender Organizations, and to make
additional payments as necessary to retain appointed counsel
under section 3006A of title 18, United States Code, to
adequately respond to any increased or expanded caseloads
that may occur as a result of this Act or the amendments made
by this Act. Funding under this subsection shall not exceed
the funding levels under subsection (d).
(f) National Gang Research, Evaluation, and Policy
Institute.--
(1) In general.--The Office of Justice Programs of the
Department of Justice, after consulting with relevant law
enforcement officials, practitioners and researchers, shall
establish a National Gang Research, Evaluation, and Policy
Institute (in this subsection referred to as the
``Institute'').
(2) Activities.--The Institute shall--
(A) promote and facilitate the implementation of data-
driven, effective gang violence suppression, prevention,
intervention, and reentry models, such as the Operation
Ceasefire model, the Strategic Public Health Approach, the
Gang Reduction Program, or any other promising municipally
driven, comprehensive community-wide strategy that is
demonstrated to be effective in reducing gang violence;
(B) assist jurisdictions by conducting timely research on
effective models and designing and promoting implementation
of effective local strategies, including programs that have
objectives and data on how they reduce gang violence
(including shootings and killings), using prevention,
outreach, and community approaches, and that demonstrate the
efficacy of these approaches; and
(C) provide and contract for technical assistance as needed
in support of its mission.
(3) National conference.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of its formation, the Institute shall design and conduct
a national conference to reduce and prevent gang violence,
and to teach and promote gang violence prevention,
intervention, and reentry strategies. The conference shall be
attended by appropriate representatives from criminal street
gang enforcement teams, and local collaborative working
groups, including representatives of educational, community,
religious, and social service organizations, and gang program
and policy research evaluators.
(4) National demonstration sites.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of its formation, the Institute shall select
appropriate HIGAA areas to serve as primary national
demonstration sites, based on the nature, concentration, and
distribution of various gang types, the jurisdiction's
established capacity to integrate prevention, intervention,
re-entry and enforcement efforts, and the range of particular
gang-related issues. After establishing primary national
demonstration sites, the Institute shall establish such other
secondary sites, to be linked to and receive evaluation,
research, and technical assistance through the primary sites,
as it may determine appropriate.
(5) Dissemination of information.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of its formation, the Institute shall develop
and begin dissemination of information about methods to
effectively reduce and prevent gang violence, including
guides, research and assessment models, case studies,
evaluations, and best practices. The Institute shall also
create a website, designed to support the implementation of
successful gang violence prevention models, and disseminate
appropriate information to assist jurisdictions in reducing
gang violence.
(6) Gang intervention academies.--Not later than 6 months
after the date of its formation, the Institute shall, either
directly or through contracts with qualified nonprofit
organizations, establish not less than 1 training academy,
located in a high intensity gang activity area, to promote
effective gang intervention and community policing. The
purposes of an academy established under this paragraph shall
be to increase professionalism of gang intervention workers,
improve officer training for working with gang intervention
workers, create best practices for independent cooperation
between officers and intervention workers, and develop
training for community policing.
(7) Support.--The Institute shall obtain initial and
continuing support from experienced researchers and
practitioners, as it determines necessary, to test and assist
in implementing its strategies nationally, regionally, and
locally.
(8) Research agenda.--The Institute shall establish and
implement a core research agenda designed to address areas of
particular challenge, including--
(A) how best to apply and continue to test the models
described in paragraph (2) in particularly large
jurisdictions;
(B) how to foster and maximize the continuing impact of
community moral voices in this context;
(C) how to ensure the long-term sustainability of reduced
violent crime levels once initial levels of enthusiasm may
subside; and
(D) how to apply existing intervention frameworks to
emerging local, regional, national, or international gang
problems, such as the emergence of the gang known as MS-13.
(9) Evaluation.--The National Institute of Justice shall
evaluate, on a continuing basis, comprehensive gang violence
prevention, intervention, suppression, and reentry strategies
supported by the Institute, and shall report the results of
these evaluations by no later than October 1 each year to the
Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
(10) Funds.--The Attorney General shall use not less than 3
percent, and not more than 5 percent, of the amounts made
available under this section to establish and operate the
Institute.
(g) Use of Funds.--Of amounts made available to a local
collaborative working group under this section for each
fiscal year that are remaining after the costs of hiring a
full time coordinator for the local collaborative effort--

[[Page S110]]

(1) 50 percent shall be used for the operation of criminal
street gang enforcement teams; and
(2) 50 percent shall be used--
(A) to provide at-risk youth with positive alternatives to
gangs and other violent groups and to address the needs of
those who leave gangs and other violent groups through--
(i) service providers in the community, including schools
and school districts; and
(ii) faith leaders and other individuals experienced at
reaching youth who have been involved in violence and violent
gangs or groups;
(B) for the establishment and operation of the National
Gang Research, Evaluation, and Policy Institute; and
(C) to support and provide technical assistance to research
in criminal justice, social services, and community gang
violence prevention collaborations.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Any funds made
available under this subsection shall remain available until
expended.

SEC. 302. GANG PREVENTION GRANTS.

(a) Authority to Make Grants.--The Office of Justice
Programs of the Department of Justice may make grants, in
accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may
prescribe, to States, units of local government, tribal
governments, and qualified private entities, to develop
community-based programs that provide crime prevention,
research, and intervention services that are designed for
gang members and at-risk youth.
(b) Use of Grant Amounts.--A grant under this section may
be used (including through subgrants) for--
(1) preventing initial gang recruitment and involvement
among younger teenagers;
(2) reducing gang involvement through nonviolent and
constructive activities, such as community service programs,
development of nonviolent conflict resolution skills,
employment and legal assistance, family counseling, and other
safe, community-based alternatives for high-risk youth;
(3) developing in-school and after-school gang safety,
control, education, and resistance procedures and programs;
(4) identifying and addressing early childhood risk factors
for gang involvement, including parent training and childhood
skills development;
(5) identifying and fostering protective factors that
buffer children and adolescents from gang involvement;
(6) developing and identifying investigative programs
designed to deter gang recruitment, involvement, and
activities through effective intelligence gathering;
(7) developing programs and youth centers for first-time
nonviolent offenders facing alternative penalties, such as
mandated participation in community service, restitution,
counseling, and education and prevention programs;
(8) implementing regional, multidisciplinary approaches to
combat gang violence though coordinated programs for
prevention and intervention (including street outreach
programs and other peacemaking activities) or coordinated law
enforcement activities (including regional gang task forces
and regional crime mapping strategies that enhance focused
prosecutions and reintegration strategies for offender
reentry); or
(9) identifying at-risk and high-risk students through home
visits organized through joint collaborations between law
enforcement, faith-based organizations, schools, and social
workers.
(c) Grant Requirements.--
(1) Maximum.--The amount of a grant under this section may
not exceed $1,000,000.
(2) Consultation and cooperation.--Each recipient of a
grant under this section shall have in effect on the date of
the application by that entity agreements to consult and
cooperate with local, State, or Federal law enforcement and
participate, as appropriate, in coordinated efforts to reduce
gang activity and violence.
(d) Annual Report.--Each recipient of a grant under this
section shall submit to the Attorney General, for each year
in which funds from a grant received under this section are
expended, a report containing--
(1) a summary of the activities carried out with grant
funds during that year;
(2) an assessment of the effectiveness of the crime
prevention, research, and intervention activities of the
recipient, based on data collected by the grant recipient;
(3) a strategic plan for the year following the year
described in paragraph (1);
(4) evidence of consultation and cooperation with local,
State, or Federal law enforcement or, if the grant recipient
is a government entity, evidence of consultation with an
organization engaged in any activity described in subsection
(b); and
(5) such other information as the Attorney General may
require.
(e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``units of local
government'' includes sheriffs departments, police
departments, and local prosecutor offices.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated for grants under this section $35,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013.

SEC. 303. ENHANCEMENT OF PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS
INITIATIVE TO IMPROVE ENFORCEMENT OF CRIMINAL
LAWS AGAINST VIOLENT GANGS.

(a) In General.--While maintaining the focus of Project
Safe Neighborhoods as a comprehensive, strategic approach to
reducing gun violence in America, the Attorney General is
authorized to expand the Project Safe Neighborhoods program
to require each United States attorney to--
(1) identify, investigate, and prosecute significant
criminal street gangs operating within their district; and
(2) coordinate the identification, investigation, and
prosecution of criminal street gangs among Federal, State,
and local law enforcement agencies.
(b) Additional Staff for Project Safe Neighborhoods.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may hire Assistant
United States attorneys, non-attorney coordinators, or
paralegals to carry out the provisions of this section.
(2) Enforcement.--The Attorney General may hire Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives agents for, and
otherwise expend additional resources in support of, the
Project Safe Neighborhoods/Firearms Violence Reduction
program.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013 to carry out this section. Any funds made
available under this paragraph shall remain available until
expended.

SEC. 304. ADDITIONAL RESOURCES NEEDED BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE
VIOLENT CRIMINAL STREET GANGS.

(a) Expansion of Safe Streets Program.--The Attorney
General is authorized to expand the Safe Streets Program of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purpose of
supporting criminal street gang enforcement teams.
(b) National Gang Activity Database.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall establish a
National Gang Activity Database to be housed at and
administered by the Department of Justice.
(2) Description.--The database required by paragraph (1)
shall--
(A) be designed to disseminate gang information to law
enforcement agencies throughout the country and, subject to
appropriate controls, to disseminate aggregate statistical
information to other members of the criminal justice system,
community leaders, academics, and the public;
(B) contain critical information on gangs, gang members,
firearms, criminal activities, vehicles, and other
information useful for investigators in solving and reducing
gang-related crimes;
(C) operate in a manner that enables law enforcement
agencies to--
(i) identify gang members involved in crimes;
(ii) track the movement of gangs and members throughout the
region;
(iii) coordinate law enforcement response to gang violence;
(iv) enhance officer safety;
(v) provide realistic, up-to-date figures and statistical
data on gang crime and violence;
(vi) forecast trends and respond accordingly; and
(vii) more easily solve crimes and prevent violence; and
(D) be subject to guidelines, issued by the Attorney
General, specifying the criteria for adding information to
the database, the appropriate period for retention of such
information, and a process for removing individuals from the
database, and prohibiting disseminating gang information to
any entity that is not a law enforcement agency, except
aggregate statistical information where appropriate.
(3) Use of riss secure intranet.--From amounts made
available to carry out this section, the Attorney General
shall provide the Regional Information Sharing Systems such
sums as are necessary to use the secure intranet known as
RISSNET to electronically connect existing gang information
systems (including the RISSGang National Gang Database) with
the National Gang Activity Database, thereby facilitating the
automated information exchange of existing gang data by all
connected systems without the need for additional databases
or data replication.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise
authorized, there are authorized to be appropriated to the
Attorney General $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013 to carry out this section.
(2) Availability.--Any amounts appropriated under paragraph
(1) shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 305. GRANTS TO PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO COMBAT
VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) In General.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control
and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) to hire additional prosecutors to--
``(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted; and
``(B) reduce backlogs; and
``(6) to fund technology, equipment, and training for
prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate
identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to
maintain databases with such information

[[Page S111]]

to facilitate coordination among law enforcement and
prosecutors.''.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

``There are authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013 to carry out this
subtitle.''.

SEC. 306. EXPANSION AND REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MENTORING
INITIATIVE FOR SYSTEM INVOLVED YOUTH.

(a) Expansion.--Section 261(a) of the Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5665(a)) is
amended by adding at the end the following: ``The
Administrator shall expand the number of sites receiving such
grants from 4 to 12.''.
(b) Authorization of Program.--Section 299(c) of the
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 (42
U.S.C. 5671(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``There are authorized'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--There are authorized''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Authorization of appropriations for mentoring
initiative.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry
out the Mentoring Initiative for System Involved Youth
Program under part E $4,800,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013.''.

SEC. 307. DEMONSTRATION GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE CREATIVE
APPROACHES TO GANG ACTIVITY AND AFTER-SCHOOL
PROGRAMS.

(a) In General.--The Attorney General may make grants to
public or nonprofit private entities (including faith-based
organizations) for the purpose of assisting the entities in
carrying out projects involving innovative approaches to
combat gang activity.
(b) Certain Approaches.--Approaches under subsection (a)
may include the following:
(1) Encouraging teen-driven approaches to gang activity
prevention.
(2) Educating parents to recognize signs of problems and
potential gang involvement in their children.
(3) Teaching parents the importance of a nurturing family
and home environment to keep children out of gangs.
(4) Facilitating communication between parents and
children, especially programs that have been evaluated and
proven effective.
(c) Matching Funds.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General may make a grant
under this section only if the entity receiving the grant
agrees to make available (directly or through donations from
public or private entities) non-Federal contributions toward
the cost of activities to be performed with that grant in an
amount that is not less than 25 percent of such costs.
(2) Determination of amount contributed.--Non-Federal
contributions required under paragraph (1) may be in cash or
in kind, fairly evaluated, including facilities, equipment,
or services. Amounts provided by the Federal Government, or
services assisted or subsidized to any significant extent by
the Federal Government, may not be included in determining
the amount of such non-Federal contributions.
(d) Evaluation of Projects.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall establish
criteria for the evaluation of projects involving innovative
approaches under subsection (a).
(2) Grantees.--A grant may be made under subsection (a)
only if the entity involved--
(A) agrees to conduct evaluations of the approach in
accordance with the criteria established under paragraph (1);
(B) agrees to submit to the Attorney General reports
describing the results of the evaluations, as the Attorney
General determines to be appropriate; and
(C) submits to the Attorney General, in the application
under subsection (e), a plan for conducting the evaluations.
(e) Application for Grant.--A public or nonprofit private
entity desiring a grant under this section shall submit an
application in such form, in such manner, and containing such
agreements, assurances, and information (including the
agreements under subsections (c) and (d) and the plan under
subsection (d)(2)(C)) as the Attorney General determines
appropriate.
(f) Report to Congress.--Not later than February 1 of each
year, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report
describing the extent to which the approaches under
subsection (a) have been successful in reducing the rate of
gang activity in the communities in which the approaches have
been carried out. Each report under this subsection shall
describe the various approaches used under subsection (a) and
the effectiveness of each of the approaches.
(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section for
each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013.

SEC. 308. SHORT-TERM STATE WITNESS PROTECTION SECTION.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 37 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 570. Short-term state witness protection section

``(a) In General.--There is established in the United
States Marshals Service a Short-Term State Witness Protection
Section which shall provide protection for witnesses in State
and local trials involving homicide or other major violent
crimes pursuant to cooperative agreements with State and
local criminal prosecutor's offices and the United States
attorney for the District of Columbia.
``(b) Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--The Short-Term State Witness Protection
Section shall give priority in awarding grants and providing
services to--
``(A) criminal prosecutor's offices for States with an
average of not less than 100 murders per year; and
``(B) criminal prosecutor's offices for jurisdictions that
include a city, town, or township with an average violent
crime rate per 100,000 inhabitants that is above the national
average.
``(2) Calculation.--The rate of murders and violent crime
under paragraph (1) shall be calculated using the latest
available crime statistics from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation during 5-year period immediately preceding an
application for protection.''.
(2) Chapter analysis.--The chapter analysis for chapter 37
of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking the
items relating to sections 570 through 576 and inserting the
following:

``570. Short-Term State Witness Protection Section.''.
(b) Grant Program.--
(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
(A) the term ``eligible prosecutor's office'' means a State
or local criminal prosecutor's office or the United States
attorney for the District of Columbia; and
(B) the term ``serious violent felony'' has the same
meaning as in section 3559(c)(2) of title 18, United States
Code.
(2) Grants authorized.--
(A) In general.--The Attorney General is authorized to make
grants to eligible prosecutor's offices for purposes of
identifying witnesses in need of protection or providing
short term protection to witnesses in trials involving
homicide or serious violent felony.
(B) Allocation.--Each eligible prosecutor's office
receiving a grant under this subsection may--
(i) use the grant to identify witnesses in need of
protection or provide witness protection (including tattoo
removal services); or
(ii) pursuant to a cooperative agreement with the Short-
Term State Witness Protection Section of the United States
Marshals Service, credit the grant to the Short-Term State
Witness Protection Section to cover the costs to the section
of providing witness protection on behalf of the eligible
prosecutor's office.
(3) Application.--
(A) In general.--Each eligible prosecutor's office desiring
a grant under this subsection shall submit an application to
the Attorney General at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as the Attorney General may
reasonably require.
(B) Contents.--Each application submitted under
subparagraph (A) shall--
(i) describe the activities for which assistance under this
subsection is sought; and
(ii) provide such additional assurances as the Attorney
General determines to be essential to ensure compliance with
the requirements of this subsection.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $90,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2011.

SEC. 309. WITNESS PROTECTION SERVICES.

Section 3526 of title 18, United States Code (Cooperation
of other Federal agencies and State governments;
reimbursement of expenses) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) In any case in which a State government requests the
Attorney General to provide temporary protection under
section 3521(e) of this title, the costs of providing
temporary protection are not reimbursable if the
investigation or prosecution in any way relates to crimes of
violence committed by a criminal street gang, as defined
under the laws of the relevant State seeking assistance under
this title.''.

SEC. 310. EXPANSION OF FEDERAL WITNESS RELOCATION AND
PROTECTION PROGRAM.

Section 3521(a)(1) of title 18 is amended by inserting ``,
criminal street gang, serious drug offense, homicide,'' after
``organized criminal activity''.

SEC. 311. FAMILY ABDUCTION PREVENTION GRANT PROGRAM.

(a) State Grants.--The Attorney General is authorized to
make grants to States for projects involving--
(1) the extradition of individuals suspected of committing
a family abduction;
(2) the investigation by State and local law enforcement
agencies of family abduction cases;
(3) the training of State and local law enforcement
agencies in responding to family abductions and recovering
abducted children, including the development of written
guidelines and technical assistance;
(4) outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the
dangers of family abductions; and
(5) the flagging of school records.
(b) Matching Requirement.--Not less than 50 percent of the
cost of a project for which a grant is made under this
section shall be provided by non-Federal sources.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:

[[Page S112]]

(1) Family abduction.---The term ``family abduction'' means
the taking, keeping, or concealing of a child or children by
a parent, other family member, or person acting on behalf of
the parent or family member, that prevents another individual
from exercising lawful custody or visitation rights.
(2) Flagging.--The term ``flagging'' means the process of
notifying law enforcement authorities of the name and address
of any person requesting the school records of an abducted
child.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands,
American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, any territory or
possession of the United States, and any Indian tribe.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for
fiscal year 2009 and such sums as may be necessary for each
of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

SEC. 312. STUDY ON ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT AND SENTENCES IN
THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.

(a) In General.--The United States Sentencing Commission
shall conduct a study to examine the appropriateness of
sentences for minors in the Federal system.
(b) Contents.--The study conducted under subsection (a)
shall--
(1) incorporate the most recent research and expertise in
the field of adolescent brain development and culpability;
(2) evaluate the toll of juvenile crime, particularly
violent juvenile crime, on communities;
(3) consider the appropriateness of life sentences without
possibility for parole for minor offenders in the Federal
system; and
(4) evaluate issues of recidivism by juveniles who are
released from prison or detention after serving determinate
sentences.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the United States Sentencing
Commission shall submit to Congress a report regarding the
study conducted under subsection (a), which shall--
(1) include the findings of the Commission;
(2) describe significant cases reviewed as part of the
study; and
(3) make recommendations, if any.
(d) Revision of Guidelines.--If determined appropriate by
the United States Sentencing Commission, after completing the
study under subsection (a) the Commission may, pursuant to
its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States
Code, establish or revise guidelines and policy statements,
as warranted, relating to the sentencing of minors under this
Act or the amendments made by this Act.

SEC. 313. NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-HEROIN MEDIA CAMPAIGN.

Section 709 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1708) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections
(l) and (m), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following:
``(k) Prevention of Heroin Abuse.--
``(1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
``(A) Heroin, and particularly the form known as `cheese
heroin' (a drug made by mixing black tar heroin with
diphenhydramine), poses a significant and increasing threat
to youth in the United States.
``(B) Drug organizations import heroin from outside of the
United States, mix the highly addictive drug with
diphenhydramine, and distribute it mostly to youth.
``(C) Since the initial discovery of cheese heroin on
Dallas school campuses in 2005, at least 21 minors have died
after overdosing on cheese heroin in Dallas County.
``(D) The number of arrests involving possession of cheese
heroin in the Dallas area during the 2006-2007 school year
increased over 60 percent from the previous school year.
``(E) The ease of communication via the Internet and cell
phones allows a drug trend to spread rapidly across the
country, creating a national threat.
``(F) Gangs recruit youth as new members by providing them
with this inexpensive drug.
``(G) Reports show that there is rampant ignorance among
youth about the dangerous and potentially fatal effects of
cheese heroin.
``(2) Prevention of heroin abuse.--In conducting
advertising and activities otherwise authorized under this
section, the Director shall promote prevention of youth
heroin use, including cheese heroin.''.

SEC. 314. TRAINING AT THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY CENTER.

(a) In General.--The National District Attorneys
Association may use the services of the National Advocacy
Center in Columbia, South Carolina to conduct a national
training program for State and local prosecutors for the
purpose of improving the professional skills of State and
local prosecutors and enhancing the ability of Federal,
State, and local prosecutors to work together.
(b) Training.--The National Advocacy Center in Columbia,
South Carolina may provide comprehensive continuing legal
education in the areas of trial practice, substantive legal
updates, and support staff training.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Attorney General to carry out this
section $6,500,000, to remain available until expended, for
fiscal years 2009 through 2012.

TITLE IV--CRIME PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Prevention Resources for
Eliminating Criminal Activity Using Tailored Interventions in
Our Neighborhoods Act of 2009'' or the ``PRECAUTION Act''.

SEC. 402. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this title are to--
(1) establish a commitment on the part of the Federal
Government to provide leadership on successful crime
prevention and intervention strategies;
(2) further the integration of crime prevention and
intervention strategies into traditional law enforcement
practices of State and local law enforcement offices around
the country;
(3) develop a plain-language, implementation-focused
assessment of those current crime and delinquency prevention
and intervention strategies that are supported by rigorous
evidence;
(4) provide additional resources to the National Institute
of Justice to administer research and development grants for
promising crime prevention and intervention strategies;
(5) develop recommendations for Federal priorities for
crime and delinquency prevention and intervention research,
development, and funding that may augment important Federal
grant programs, including the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), grant programs administered by the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the
Department of Justice, grant programs administered by the
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools of the Department of
Education, and other similar programs; and
(6) reduce the costs that rising violent crime imposes on
interstate commerce.

SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.

In this title, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the National
Commission on Public Safety Through Crime Prevention
established under section 404(a).
(2) Rigorous evidence.--The term ``rigorous evidence''
means evidence generated by scientifically valid forms of
outcome evaluation, particularly randomized trials (where
practicable).
(3) Subcategory.--The term ``subcategory'' means 1 of the
following categories:
(A) Family and community settings (including public health-
based strategies).
(B) Law enforcement settings (including probation-based
strategies).
(C) School settings (including antigang and general
antiviolence strategies).
(4) Top-tier.--The term ``top-tier'' means any strategy
supported by rigorous evidence of the sizable, sustained
benefits to participants in the strategy or to society.

SEC. 404. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH CRIME
PREVENTION.

(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the National Commission on Public Safety Through
Crime Prevention.
(b) Members.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, of whom--
(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President, 1 of whom shall
be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs or a representative of such Assistant Attorney
General;
(B) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, unless the Speaker is of the same party as
the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and 1 shall be
appointed by the minority leader of the House of
Representatives;
(C) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives (in addition to any appointment made
under subparagraph (B));
(D) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate, unless the majority leader is of the same party as
the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the
majority leader of the Senate and 1 shall be appointed by the
minority leader of the Senate; and
(E) 1 member appointed by the minority leader of the Senate
(in addition to any appointment made under subparagraph (D)).
(2) Persons eligible.--
(A) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall be an
individual who has knowledge or expertise in matters to be
studied by the Commission.
(B) Required representatives.--At least--
(i) 2 members of the Commission shall be respected social
scientists with experience implementing or interpreting
rigorous, outcome-based trials; and
(ii) 2 members of the Commission shall be law enforcement
practitioners.
(3) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the
House of Representatives, and the majority leader and
minority leader of the Senate shall consult prior to the
appointment of the members of the Commission to achieve, to
the maximum extent possible, fair and equitable
representation of various points of view with respect to the
matters to be studied by the Commission.

[[Page S113]]

(4) Term.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of
the Commission.
(5) Time for initial appointments.--The appointment of the
members shall be made not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(6) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled
in the manner in which the original appointment was made, and
shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which
the vacancy occurred.
(7) Ex officio members.--The Director of the National
Institute of Justice, the Director of the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Director of the
Community Capacity Development Office, the Director of the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Director of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, and the Director of Community Oriented
Policing Services (or a representative of each such director)
shall each serve in an ex officio capacity on the Commission
to provide advice and information to the Commission.
(c) Operation.--
(1) Chairperson.--At the initial meeting of the Commission,
the members of the Commission shall elect a chairperson from
among its voting members, by a vote of \2/3\ of the members
of the Commission. The chairperson shall retain this position
for the life of the Commission. If the chairperson leaves the
Commission, a new chairperson shall be selected, by a vote of
\2/3\ of the members of the Commission.
(2) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
chairperson. The initial meeting of the Commission shall take
place not later than 30 days after the date on which all the
members of the Commission have been appointed.
(3) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, and the
Commission may establish a lesser quorum for conducting
hearings scheduled by the Commission.
(4) Rules.--The Commission may establish by majority vote
any other rules for the conduct of Commission business, if
such rules are not inconsistent with this title or other
applicable law.
(d) Public Hearings.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall hold public hearings.
The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such
times and places, take such testimony, and receive such
evidence as the Commission considers advisable to carry out
its duties under this section.
(2) Focus of hearings.--The Commission shall hold at least
3 separate public hearings, each of which shall focus on 1 of
the subcategories.
(3) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before
the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to
witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code.
The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be
paid from funds appropriated to the Commission.
(e) Comprehensive Study of Evidence-Based Crime Prevention
and Intervention Strategies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall carry out a
comprehensive study of the effectiveness of crime and
delinquency prevention and intervention strategies, organized
around the 3 subcategories.
(2) Matters included.--The study under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) a review of research on the general effectiveness of
incorporating crime prevention and intervention strategies
into an overall law enforcement plan;
(B) an evaluation of how to more effectively communicate
the wealth of social science research to practitioners;
(C) a review of evidence regarding the effectiveness of
specific crime prevention and intervention strategies,
focusing on those strategies supported by rigorous evidence;
(D) an identification of--
(i) promising areas for further research and development;
and
(ii) other areas representing gaps in the body of knowledge
that would benefit from additional research and development;
(E) an assessment of the best practices for implementing
prevention and intervention strategies;
(F) an assessment of the best practices for gathering
rigorous evidence regarding the implementation of
intervention and prevention strategies; and
(G) an assessment of those top-tier strategies best suited
for duplication efforts in a range of settings across the
country.
(3) Initial report on top-tier crime prevention and
intervention strategies.--
(A) Distribution.--Not later than 18 months after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall submit a public report on the study
carried out under this subsection to--
(i) the President;
(ii) Congress;
(iii) the Attorney General;
(iv) the Chief Federal Public Defender of each district;
(v) the chief executive of each State;
(vi) the Director of the Administrative Office of the
Courts of each State;
(vii) the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts; and
(viii) the attorney general of each State.
(B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall
include--
(i) the findings and conclusions of the Commission;
(ii) a summary of the top-tier strategies, including--

(I) a review of the rigorous evidence supporting the
designation of each strategy as top-tier;
(II) a brief outline of the keys to successful
implementation for each strategy; and
(III) a list of references and other information on where
further information on each strategy can be found;

(iii) recommended protocols for implementing crime and
delinquency prevention and intervention strategies generally;
(iv) recommended protocols for evaluating the effectiveness
of crime and delinquency prevention and intervention
strategies; and
(v) a summary of the materials relied upon by the
Commission in preparation of the report.
(C) Consultation with outside authorities.--In developing
the recommended protocols for implementation and rigorous
evaluation of top-tier crime and delinquency prevention and
intervention strategies under this paragraph, the Commission
shall consult with the Committee on Law and Justice at the
National Academy of Science and with national associations
representing the law enforcement and social science
professions, including the National Sheriffs' Association,
the Police Executive Research Forum, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Consortium of Social
Science Associations, and the American Society of
Criminology.
(f) Recommendations Regarding Dissemination of the
Innovative Crime Prevention and Intervention Strategy
Grants.--
(1) Submission.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the final hearing under subsection (d) relating to a
subcategory, the Commission shall provide the Director of the
National Institute of Justice with recommendations on
qualifying considerations relating to that subcategory for
selecting grant recipients under section 405.
(B) Deadline.--Not later than 13 months after the date on
which all members of the Commission have been appointed, the
Commission shall provide all recommendations required under
this subsection.
(2) Matters included.--The recommendations provided under
paragraph (1) shall include recommendations relating to--
(A) the types of strategies for the applicable subcategory
that would best benefit from additional research and
development;
(B) any geographic or demographic targets;
(C) the types of partnerships with other public or private
entities that might be pertinent and prioritized; and
(D) any classes of crime and delinquency prevention and
intervention strategies that should not be given priority
because of a pre-existing base of knowledge that would
benefit less from additional research and development.
(g) Final Report on the Results of the Innovative Crime
Prevention and Intervention Strategy Grants.--
(1) In general.--Following the close of the 3-year
implementation period for each grant recipient under section
405, the Commission shall collect the results of the study of
the effectiveness of that grant under section 405(b)(3) and
shall submit a public report to the President, the Attorney
General, Congress, the chief executive of each State, and the
attorney general of each State describing each strategy
funded under section 405 and its results. This report shall
be submitted not later than 5 years after the date of the
selection of the chairperson of the Commission.
(2) Collection of information and evidence regarding grant
recipients.--The Commission's collection of information and
evidence regarding each grant recipient under section 405
shall be carried out by--
(A) ongoing communications with the grant administrator at
the National Institute of Justice;
(B) visits by representatives of the Commission (including
at least 1 member of the Commission) to the site where the
grant recipient is carrying out the strategy with a grant
under section 405, at least once in the second and once in
the third year of that grant;
(C) a review of the data generated by the study monitoring
the effectiveness of the strategy; and
(D) other means as necessary.
(3) Matters included.--The report submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include a review of each strategy carried out with
a grant under section 405, detailing--
(A) the type of crime or delinquency prevention or
intervention strategy;
(B) where the activities under the strategy were carried
out, including geographic and demographic targets;
(C) any partnerships with public or private entities
through the course of the grant period;
(D) the type and design of the effectiveness study
conducted under section 405(b)(3) for that strategy;
(E) the results of the effectiveness study conducted under
section 405(b)(3) for that strategy;
(F) lessons learned regarding implementation of that
strategy or of the effectiveness study conducted under
section 405(b)(3), including recommendations regarding which
types of environments might best be suited for successful
replication; and
(G) recommendations regarding the need for further research
and development of the strategy.
(h) Personnel Matters.--

[[Page S114]]

(1) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission 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 service for the Commission.
(2) Compensation of members.--Members of the Commission
shall serve without compensation.
(3) Staff.--
(A) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate an executive director and such other
additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an
executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(B) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
such title.
(4) Detail of federal employees.--With the affirmative vote
of \2/3\ of the members of the Commission, any Federal
Government employee, with the approval of the head of the
appropriate Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission
without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without
interruption or loss of civil service status, benefits, or
privileges.
(i) Contracts for Research.--
(1) National institute of justice.--With a \2/3\
affirmative vote of the members of the Commission, the
Commission may select nongovernmental researchers and experts
to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under
this title. The National Institute of Justice shall contract
with the researchers and experts selected by the Commission
to provide funding in exchange for their services.
(2) Other organizations.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to limit the ability of the Commission to enter
into contracts with other entities or organizations for
research necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission
under this section.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
(k) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the
date that is 30 days after the date on which the Commission
submits the last report required by this section.
(l) Exemption.--The Commission shall be exempt from the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.

SEC. 405. INNOVATIVE CRIME PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION
STRATEGY GRANTS.

(a) Grants Authorized.--The Director of the National
Institute of Justice may make grants to public and private
entities to fund the implementation and evaluation of
innovative crime or delinquency prevention or intervention
strategies. The purpose of grants under this section shall be
to provide funds for all expenses related to the
implementation of such a strategy and to conduct a rigorous
study on the effectiveness of that strategy.
(b) Grant Distribution.--
(1) Period.--A grant under this section shall be made for a
period of not more than 3 years.
(2) Amount.--The amount of each grant under this section--
(A) shall be sufficient to ensure that rigorous evaluations
may be performed; and
(B) shall not exceed $2,000,000.
(3) Evaluation set-aside.--
(A) In general.--A grantee shall use not less than $300,000
and not more than $700,000 of the funds from a grant under
this section for a rigorous study of the effectiveness of the
strategy during the 3-year period of the grant for that
strategy.
(B) Methodology of study.--
(i) In general.--Each study conducted under subparagraph
(A) shall use an evaluator and a study design approved by the
employee of the National Institute of Justice hired or
assigned under subsection (c).
(ii) Criteria.--The employee of the National Institute of
Justice hired or assigned under subsection (c) shall
approve--

(I) an evaluator that has successfully carried out multiple
studies producing rigorous evidence of effectiveness; and
(II) a proposed study design that is likely to produce
rigorous evidence of the effectiveness of the strategy.

(iii) Approval.--Before a grant is awarded under this
section, the evaluator and study design of a grantee shall be
approved by the employee of the National Institute of Justice
hired or assigned under subsection (c).
(4) Date of award.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of receiving recommendations relating to a subcategory from
the Commission under section 404(f), the Director of the
National Institute of Justice shall award all grants under
this section relating to that subcategory.
(5) Type of grants.--One-third of the grants made under
this section shall be made in each subcategory. In
distributing grants, the recommendations of the Commission
under section 404(f) shall be considered.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $18,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
(c) Dedicated Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of
Justice shall hire or assign a full-time employee to oversee
the grants under this section.
(2) Study oversight.--The employee of the National
Institute of Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1)
shall be responsible for ensuring that grantees adhere to the
study design approved before the applicable grant was
awarded.
(3) Liaison.--The employee of the National Institute of
Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1) may be used as
a liaison between the Commission and the recipients of a
grant under this section. That employee shall be responsible
for ensuring timely cooperation with Commission requests.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $150,000 for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2013 to carry out this subsection.
(d) Applications.--A public or private entity desiring a
grant under this section shall submit an application at such
time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as
the Director of the National Institute of Justice may
reasonably require.
(e) Cooperation With the Commission.--Grant recipients
shall cooperate with the Commission in providing them with
full information on the progress of the strategy being
carried out with a grant under this section, including--
(1) hosting visits by the members of the Commission to the
site where the activities under the strategy are being
carried out;
(2) providing pertinent information on the logistics of
establishing the strategy for which the grant under this
section was received, including details on partnerships,
selection of participants, and any efforts to publicize the
strategy; and
(3) responding to any specific inquiries that may be made
by the Commission.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs.
Boxer, Mr. Nelson, of Florida, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Specter):
S. 133. A bill to prohibit any recipient of emergency Federal
economic assistance from using such funds for lobbying expenditures or
political contributions, to improve transparency, enhance
accountability, encourage responsible corporate governance, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator
Snowe to introduce legislation that will increase transparency,
strengthen oversight, and require firms receiving financial lifelines
from the Federal Government to practice responsible corporate
governance.
Our bill--the Troubled Asset Relief Program Transparency Reporting
Act--will achieve four essential objectives, prohibit firms receiving
loans from the Federal Reserve or participating in the Troubled Asset
Relief Program, TARP, from using this money for lobbying expenditures
or political contributions; require that firms receiving government
assistance provide detailed, publicly available quarterly reports to
Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish
corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving Federal
assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and create
penalties of at least $100,000 per violation for firms that fail to
meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill.
The need for such legislation has become very apparent in the 3
months since Congress approved the economic rescue plan.
The economic rescue legislation passed in October includes several
oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public
funds are effectively distributed. But, it does not include any
reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars.
This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of
Federal money that some firms are receiving.
The Treasury Department has committed to purchasing $250 billion of
preferred stock in financial institutions. More than 200 financial
institutions have received roughly $188 billion. Of these funds, $125
billion was allocated to nine large national banks.
In addition to injecting capital into banks, American Insurance
Group, AIG, has received an additional $40 billion and CitiGroup has
received $20 billion of TARP funds.
Last month, GM received more than $10 billion in financing through
the recently implemented Automotive Industry Financing Program.
This effectively means that the entirety of the first $350 billion of
rescue funds has been spent.
When you add up all of the taxpayer dollars put on the line--from $30
billion

[[Page S115]]

provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 billion available to Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion for TARP, plus the
direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve--we are talking about
well over 1 trillion Federal dollars.
I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for the public to know how
their money is being spent, and I am not the only Member of Congress or
elected official who feels this way.
In response to questions posed by the Congressional Oversight Panel
for Economic Stabilization, the Treasury Department noted that it was
committed to rigorous oversight of executive compensation packages.
This may be the case, but executive compensation is only the beginning.
While I am pleased that CEOs at some financial institutions that
accepted Federal assistance did not accept their annual bonuses last
year, we still do not have an official accounting of how Federal funds
were used.
Certainly Americans deserve assurances that struggling firms will not
use public funds to pay exorbitant salaries or bonuses.
The same can be said for these funds going towards dividend payments,
or mergers and acquisitions.
The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has reported that the
Treasury Department had no strong accountability or oversight function
to ensure that banks were using rescue assistance with the best
interests of the public in mind.
It noted that Treasury had little ability to ensure that
participating firms complied with laws already limiting executive
compensation and conflicts of interest.
An investigation last month by the Associated Press found that many
banks that have accepted Federal assistance are not able to say with
certainty exactly how they have used the money. Some of these banks
would not even discuss the issue.
We cannot be sure that the rescue funds are being used to stabilize
the economy if banks are not keeping proper accounting of their use,
and those that do will not disclose it.
Shining light on how firms use public dollars not only makes good
sense, but it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior.
On October 16, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that AIG, which
received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, was continuing to
lobby State regulators to delay implementation of strengthened
licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders.
AIG was lobbying against sensible standards created by the SAFE
Mortgage Licensing Act. This bill, introduced by Senator Martinez and
myself, established basic minimum regulations for the mortgage industry
to ensure consumers were adequately protected.
Before this bill, in some States virtually anyone--even those with
criminal records--could go out and get a mortgage broker's license.
Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous
mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the markets with subprime loans
that they knew would never be paid back.
Of course, this has served as one of the catalysts for our current
economic predicament.
And now AIG, propped up by billions in Government money after having
succumbed to bad investments, was lobbying against the strong
enforcement of State laws that might have helped prevent this
catastrophe in the first place.
Senator Martinez and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company's
credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company's lobbying
operations.
I find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars intended to
stabilize the economy could find their way into the bank accounts of
lobbying firms. The legislation which I am reintroducing today will
make sure that does not happen.
I do not mean to pick on AIG, but they have also been the poster
child for wasteful spending by rescued firms.
In September 2008, just days after receiving an $85 billion Federal
lifeline, the management of AIG treated itself to a $444,000 spa
weekend at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, California. This
included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in
spa charges.
AIG executives spent the last 2 days of September 2008 on a golf
outing at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of up to $500,000. They
were planning to follow this with a few days at the Ritz Carlton in
Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew fire from
congressional leaders.
As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG
received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal
Government.
Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that--even as AIG
was asking Congress for these loans--AIG executives were spending
$86,000 on a pheasant hunting expedition in England. During the trip,
they stayed at a 17th century manor.
One AIG executive named Sebastian Preil was quoted as saying that:
``The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great
today and we are relaxing fine.''
Once these lapses in judgment came to light, AIG chief executive
Edward Liddy informed Congress that he was putting an end to all
nonessential expenditures. Yet weeks later, an undercover news crew
caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix,
hosting a seminar for financial planners complete with cocktails and
limousines.
One would think that a brush with collapse and total failure might
have a sobering effect on some of these firms.
But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete
failure was not unique to AIG.
Following enactment of TARP, news reports have uncovered multiple
instances in which rescued firms have been caught making unnecessary
and outrageous expenditures, leading many taxpayers to question why
these firms are receiving Federal assistance in the first place.
In November, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that the $700
billion approved by Congress to stabilize financial markets would not
be used to purchase illiquid assets but rather to make direct capital
injections into financial institutions.
Given this new mission, the need for additional transparency and
disclosure is striking.
We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and
their executives to act sensibly and do what is right.
The public needs to know that their tax dollars are being put to good
use.
A simple ``trust me'' from the bank executives is not enough.
Americans are struggling, and the pain in my State of California,
where unemployment is 8.4 percent, and foreclosure filings exceeded
750,000 last year, is especially acute.
This bill puts in place commonsense solutions to fix some of the
deficiencies in the economic stabilization bill.
This legislation is significant and sorely needed.
We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed
light on how public funds are used. We promised the American people
transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that
promise.
I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure that taxpayer dollars are
spent efficiently and responsibly.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 138. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal
alternative minimum tax limitations on private activity bond interest,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introduce
legislation to exempt private activity bond interest from the
alternative minimum tax, AMT. My colleague from Massachusetts,
Representative Richard Neal has introduced similar legislation. Under
current law, interest paid on private activity bonds is subject to the
alternative minimum tax. This results in the bonds not being very
marketable in these difficult economic times.
Making private activity bonds no longer subject to the AMT would help
with the issuance of bonds. This legislation would assist in needed
relief to State and local governments across the Nation. It would
provide more buyers to the market, resulting in interest savings for
issuers, and ultimately taxpayers.

[[Page S116]]

Subjecting private activity bond interest to the AMT could cost an
issuer 25 to 30 more basis points when issuing an AMT bond compared to
a non-AMT bond. However, the recent freezing of the municipal credit
market has led the difference to rise as much as 100 basis points. This
results in increased costs for various infrastructure projects
including airports, docks and other transportation-related facilities;
water, sewer and other utility facilities; and solid and hazardous
waste disposal facilities.
Last Congress, I worked on a provision to exempt the interest from
private activity housing bonds from the AMT and this provision was
included in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The
legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing builds on this
provision by exempting interest from all private activity bonds from
the AMT.
I believe this legislation will help spur the economy and create
jobs. This legislation will provide better funding options for
essential infrastructure projects and create jobs across the country. I
look forward to working with my colleagues on this important
legislation.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 139. A bill to require Federal agencies, and persons engaged in
interstate commerce, in possession of data containing sensitive
personally identifiable information, to disclose any breach of such
information; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Data Breach
Notification Act.
This is a commonsense bill that is aimed at protecting personal
information and preventing identity theft. The bill would require
businesses and government agencies to notify individuals when their
sensitive personal information has been exposed in a data breach.
As many of you know, I have been urging the Senate to adopt this
legislation since 2003, when California first imposed a State
notification requirement.
That legislation has helped consumers in my State. Federal data
breach law would provide uniformity and protect consumers throughout
the country.
With every year that passes, the evidence in support of this
legislation has only continued to mount.
The cost of identity theft is enormous--estimated at more than $50
billion per year. Some of the costs fall on businesses and banks, which
suffer losses from fraudulent transactions. Some of the costs are also
borne by consumers, whose finances and credit ratings are disrupted.
Since the beginning of 2005, over 240 million data records containing
individuals' sensitive personal data have been exposed in data
breaches.
It seems that not a week goes by without news of another security
breach that exposes names, addresses, birth dates, social security
numbers, or other personal data.
These breaches have spawned a vast online market in stolen
identities. Today, each person whose identity is sold on the internet
faces a high risk of becoming a victim of identity theft. Each of them
faces the expensive and time-consuming nightmare of trying to restore
their finances and credit ratings.
According to a report by the Identity Theft Resource Center, the news
media reported more than 620 breaches involving personal information
during 2008. That works out to about one data security breach every 14
hours--and those are just the ones that are big enough to be covered in
the media.
Recent reports of security breaches involving sensitive personal data
point out the extent of the problem.
In December 2008, during a website development project at the Florida
Agency for Workforce Innovation, the Social Security numbers of more
than a quarter of a million people were accidentally posted online.
In August of last year, an employee working weekends at Countrywide
copied customer records from an office computer and then sold the
personal information of an estimated 2,000,000 mortgage applicants.
In May of 2007, a breach at the Transportation Security
Administration made the names, Social Security numbers, birth dates,
payroll information, and bank account information of more than 100,000
former employees vulnerable to theft or sale.
In January of that same year, hackers accessed information held by
TJX stores, including more than 45 million credit card numbers and more
than 455,000 merchandise records containing customers' drivers license
numbers.
In May of 2006, there was a breach at the Department of Veterans
Affairs that involved the names, birth dates, and Social Security
numbers of every veteran discharged from the military since 1975--more
than 28 million veterans--every veteran discharged from the military
since 1975.
Another disturbing example took place last year at the State
Department when the passport files of Senator Clinton, Senator McCain,
and Senator Obama--the three leading presidential contenders at the
time--were accessed by contractors working for the Department. Though
the Department knew about the breaches right away, several months
passed before our colleagues were told about the problem.
Unfortunately, this delay is not surprising--because there is
currently nothing to require a Federal agency to tell us when a
security breach affects our personal data.
That needs to change. That's what my bill does.
Specifically, this legislation requires the Federal Government and
private businesses to notify individuals when there has been a security
breach involving their sensitive personal data; ensures that the notice
is provided without unreasonable delay; creates very limited exceptions
to notification for national security and law enforcement purposes, and
when law enforcement certifies that there is there is no significant
risk of harm to the individual; establishes penalties against those who
do not provide the required notice. The provisions of the bill would be
enforced by the Federal and State attorneys general; and pre-empts
State laws so that there is a single, nationwide notification
requirement.
Data security breaches have real consequences. For one thing, they
are bad for business because they lead to a loss of confidence--
especially in online commerce. A 2005 survey for Consumer Reports
showed that 25 percent of Internet users stopped shopping online
because of fears about identity theft. Of people who still shopped
online, 29 percent said that they had cut back on how often they buy
products on the Internet.
Data breaches also pose serious harms for consumers. A November 2007
report from the Federal Trade Commission revealed that identity theft
victims spent as much as $5,000 of their own money--and as many as
1,200 hours of their time--recovering from the harm to their finances
caused by identity theft.
While not all data breaches lead to identity theft, the cost of
stolen identities is so enormous that we should be doing everything we
can to solve this problem.
The situation requires action. While Congress has been slow to act,
the States have not. In the almost 6 years since the California law
took effect, 43 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands have passed similar laws.
A report issued by the Federal Trade Commission in December 2008
noted that these State data breach notification laws have had several
indirect benefits; many businesses across the country have strengthened
their safeguard practices in order to avoid data breaches.
By forcing companies to consider the potential cost and liability
that may ensue if information is compromised in a data breach, these
laws have the indirect benefit of motivating companies to reassess
their need to collect personally identifiable information in the first
place.
The same benefits would flow from Federal legislation. Additionally,
the Data Breach Notification Act would improve the law by creating a
single, uniform national standard.
A September 2008 report issued by the President's Identity Theft Task
Force again emphasized the need for a unified Federal standard to
replace the patchwork of varied state laws currently in place. The
December 2008 FTC report made the same point.
A Federal bill will simplify the process of compliance and
notification for

[[Page S117]]

businesses, while ensuring that all consumers get the information they
need as soon as possible when breaches happen.
We have already waited too long. The Judiciary Committee endorsed
this bill unanimously during the last Congress. The epidemic of data
breaches in our nation continues unabated. This is a common-sense bill
that we should take action on now.
I urge the Senate to pass the Data Breach Notification Act to give
Americans the information they need to protect themselves from identity
theft.
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. 139

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 ``Data Breach Notification
Act''.

SEC. 2. NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Any agency, or business entity engaged in
interstate commerce, that uses, accesses, transmits, stores,
disposes of or collects sensitive personally identifiable
information shall, following the discovery of a security
breach of such information notify any resident of the United
States whose sensitive personally identifiable information
has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed,
or acquired.
(b) Obligation of Owner or Licensee.--
(1) Notice to owner or licensee.--Any agency, or business
entity engaged in interstate commerce, that uses, accesses,
transmits, stores, disposes of, or collects sensitive
personally identifiable information that the agency or
business entity does not own or license shall notify the
owner or licensee of the information following the discovery
of a security breach involving such information.
(2) Notice by owner, licensee or other designated third
party.--Nothing in this Act shall prevent or abrogate an
agreement between an agency or business entity required to
give notice under this section and a designated third party,
including an owner or licensee of the sensitive personally
identifiable information subject to the security breach, to
provide the notifications required under subsection (a).
(3) Business entity relieved from giving notice.--A
business entity obligated to give notice under subsection (a)
shall be relieved of such obligation if an owner or licensee
of the sensitive personally identifiable information subject
to the security breach, or other designated third party,
provides such notification.
(c) Timeliness of Notification.--
(1) In general.--All notifications required under this
section shall be made without unreasonable delay following
the discovery by the agency or business entity of a security
breach.
(2) Reasonable delay.--Reasonable delay under this
subsection may include any time necessary to determine the
scope of the security breach, prevent further disclosures,
and restore the reasonable integrity of the data system and
provide notice to law enforcement when required.
(3) Burden of proof.--The agency, business entity, owner,
or licensee required to provide notification under this
section shall have the burden of demonstrating that all
notifications were made as required under this Act, including
evidence demonstrating the reasons for any delay.
(d) Delay of Notification Authorized for Law Enforcement
Purposes.--
(1) In general.--If a Federal law enforcement agency
determines that the notification required under this section
would impede a criminal investigation, such notification
shall be delayed upon written notice from such Federal law
enforcement agency to the agency or business entity that
experienced the breach.
(2) Extended delay of notification.--If the notification
required under subsection (a) is delayed pursuant to
paragraph (1), an agency or business entity shall give notice
30 days after the day such law enforcement delay was invoked
unless a Federal law enforcement agency provides written
notification that further delay is necessary.
(3) Law enforcement immunity.--No cause of action shall lie
in any court against any law enforcement agency for acts
relating to the delay of notification for law enforcement
purposes under this Act.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTIONS.

(a) Exemption for National Security and Law Enforcement.--
(1) In general.--Section 2 shall not apply to an agency or
business entity if the agency or business entity certifies,
in writing, that notification of the security breach as
required by section 2 reasonably could be expected to--
(A) cause damage to the national security; or
(B) hinder a law enforcement investigation or the ability
of the agency to conduct law enforcement investigations.
(2) Limits on certifications.--An agency or business entity
may not execute a certification under paragraph (1) to--
(A) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or
administrative error;
(B) prevent embarrassment to a business entity,
organization, or agency; or
(C) restrain competition.
(3) Notice.--In every case in which an agency or business
entity issues a certification under paragraph (1), the
certification, accompanied by a description of the factual
basis for the certification, shall be immediately provided to
the United States Secret Service.
(4) Secret service review of certifications.--
(A) In general.--The United States Secret Service may
review a certification provided by an agency under paragraph
(3), and shall review a certification provided by a business
entity under paragraph (3), to determine whether an exemption
under paragraph (1) is merited. Such review shall be
completed not later than 10 business days after the date of
receipt of the certification, except as provided in paragraph
(5)(C).
(B) Notice.--Upon completing a review under subparagraph
(A) the United States Secret Service shall immediately notify
the agency or business entity, in writing, of its
determination of whether an exemption under paragraph (1) is
merited.
(C) Exemption.--The exemption under paragraph (1) shall not
apply if the United States Secret Service determines under
this paragraph that the exemption is not merited.
(5) Additional authority of the secret service.--
(A) In general.--In determining under paragraph (4) whether
an exemption under paragraph (1) is merited, the United
States Secret Service may request additional information from
the agency or business entity regarding the basis for the
claimed exemption, if such additional information is
necessary to determine whether the exemption is merited.
(B) Required compliance.--Any agency or business entity
that receives a request for additional information under
subparagraph (A) shall cooperate with any such request.
(C) Timing.--If the United States Secret Service requests
additional information under subparagraph (A), the United
States Secret Service shall notify the agency or business
entity not later than 10 business days after the date of
receipt of the additional information whether an exemption
under paragraph (1) is merited.
(b) Safe Harbor.--
(1) In general.--An agency or business entity shall be
exempt from the notice requirements under section 2, if--
(A) a risk assessment concludes that there is no
significant risk that a security breach has resulted in, or
will result in, harm to the individual whose sensitive
personally identifiable information was subject to the
security breach;
(B) without unreasonable delay, but not later than 45 days
after the discovery of a security breach (unless extended by
the United States Secret Service), the agency or business
entity notifies the United States Secret Service, in writing,
of--
(i) the results of the risk assessment; and
(ii) its decision to invoke the risk assessment exemption;
and
(C) the United States Secret Service does not indicate, in
writing, and not later than 10 business days after the date
of receipt of the decision described in subparagraph (B)(ii),
that notice should be given.
(2) Presumptions.--There shall be a presumption that no
significant risk of harm to the individual whose sensitive
personally identifiable information was subject to a security
breach if such information--
(A) was encrypted; or
(B) was rendered indecipherable through the use of best
practices or methods, such as redaction, access controls, or
other such mechanisms, that are widely accepted as an
effective industry practice, or an effective industry
standard.
(c) Financial Fraud Prevention Exemption.--
(1) In general.--A business entity will be exempt from the
notice requirement under section 2 if the business entity
utilizes or participates in a security program that--
(A) is designed to block the use of the sensitive
personally identifiable information to initiate unauthorized
financial transactions before they are charged to the account
of the individual; and
(B) provides for notice to affected individuals after a
security breach that has resulted in fraud or unauthorized
transactions.
(2) Limitation.--The exemption by this subsection does not
apply if--
(A) the information subject to the security breach includes
sensitive personally identifiable information, other than a
credit card number or credit card security code, of any type;
or
(B) the information subject to the security breach includes
both the individual's credit card number and the individual's
first and last name.

SEC. 4. METHODS OF NOTICE.

An agency, or business entity shall be in compliance with
section 2 if it provides both:
(1) Individual notice.--
(A) Written notification to the last known home mailing
address of the individual in the records of the agency or
business entity;
(B) telephone notice to the individual personally; or
(C) e-mail notice, if the individual has consented to
receive such notice and the notice is consistent with the
provisions permitting

[[Page S118]]

electronic transmission of notices under section 101 of the
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (15
U.S.C. 7001).
(2) Media notice.--Notice to major media outlets serving a
State or jurisdiction, if the number of residents of such
State whose sensitive personally identifiable information
was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an
unauthorized person exceeds 5,000.

SEC. 5. CONTENT OF NOTIFICATION.

(a) In General.--Regardless of the method by which notice
is provided to individuals under section 4, such notice shall
include, to the extent possible--
(1) a description of the categories of sensitive personally
identifiable information that was, or is reasonably believed
to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person;
(2) a toll-free number--
(A) that the individual may use to contact the agency or
business entity, or the agent of the agency or business
entity; and
(B) from which the individual may learn what types of
sensitive personally identifiable information the agency or
business entity maintained about that individual; and
(3) the toll-free contact telephone numbers and addresses
for the major credit reporting agencies.
(b) Additional Content.--Notwithstanding section 10, a
State may require that a notice under subsection (a) shall
also include information regarding victim protection
assistance provided for by that State.

SEC. 6. COORDINATION OF NOTIFICATION WITH CREDIT REPORTING
AGENCIES.

If an agency or business entity is required to provide
notification to more than 5,000 individuals under section
2(a), the agency or business entity shall also notify all
consumer reporting agencies that compile and maintain files
on consumers on a nationwide basis (as defined in section
603(p) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681a(p))
of the timing and distribution of the notices. Such notice
shall be given to the consumer credit reporting agencies
without unreasonable delay and, if it will not delay notice
to the affected individuals, prior to the distribution of
notices to the affected individuals.

SEC. 7. NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Secret Service.--Any business entity or agency shall
notify the United States Secret Service of the fact that a
security breach has occurred if--
(1) the number of individuals whose sensitive personally
identifying information was, or is reasonably believed to
have been acquired by an unauthorized person exceeds 10,000;
(2) the security breach involves a database, networked or
integrated databases, or other data system containing the
sensitive personally identifiable information of more than
1,000,000 individuals nationwide;
(3) the security breach involves databases owned by the
Federal Government; or
(4) the security breach involves primarily sensitive
personally identifiable information of individuals known to
the agency or business entity to be employees and contractors
of the Federal Government involved in national security or
law enforcement.
(b) Notice to Other Law Enforcement Agencies.--The United
States Secret Service shall be responsible for notifying--
(1) the Federal Bureau of Investigation, if the security
breach involves espionage, foreign counterintelligence,
information protected against unauthorized disclosure for
reasons of national defense or foreign relations, or
Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11y of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for
offenses affecting the duties of the United States Secret
Service under section 3056(a) of title 18, United States
Code;
(2) the United States Postal Inspection Service, if the
security breach involves mail fraud; and
(3) the attorney general of each State affected by the
security breach.
(c) Timing of Notices.--The notices required under this
section shall be delivered as follows:
(1) Notice under subsection (a) shall be delivered as
promptly as possible, but not later than 14 days after
discovery of the events requiring notice.
(2) Notice under subsection (b) shall be delivered not
later than 14 days after the United States Secret Service
receives notice of a security breach from an agency or
business entity.

SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Civil Actions by the Attorney General.--The Attorney
General may bring a civil action in the appropriate United
States district court against any business entity that
engages in conduct constituting a violation of this Act and,
upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the
evidence, such business entity shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not more than $1,000 per day per individual whose
sensitive personally identifiable information was, or is
reasonably believed to have been, accessed or acquired by an
unauthorized person, up to a maximum of $1,000,000 per
violation, unless such conduct is found to be willful or
intentional.
(b) Injunctive Actions by the Attorney General.--
(1) In general.--If it appears that a business entity has
engaged, or is engaged, in any act or practice constituting a
violation of this Act, the Attorney General may petition an
appropriate district court of the United States for an
order--
(A) enjoining such act or practice; or
(B) enforcing compliance with this Act.
(2) Issuance of order.--A court may issue an order under
paragraph (1), if the court finds that the conduct in
question constitutes a violation of this Act.
(c) Other Rights and Remedies.--The rights and remedies
available under this Act are cumulative and shall not affect
any other rights and remedies available under law.
(d) Fraud Alert.--Section 605A(b)(1) of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681c-1(b)(1)) is amended by
inserting ``, or evidence that the consumer has received
notice that the consumer's financial information has or may
have been compromised,'' after ``identity theft report''.

SEC. 9. ENFORCEMENT BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.

(a) In General.--
(1) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State or any State or local law enforcement
agency authorized by the State attorney general or by State
statute to prosecute violations of consumer protection law,
has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of
that State has been or is threatened or adversely affected by
the engagement of a business entity in a practice that is
prohibited under this Act, the State or the State or local
law enforcement agency on behalf of the residents of the
agency's jurisdiction, may bring a civil action on behalf of
the residents of the State or jurisdiction in a district
court of the United States of appropriate jurisdiction or any
other court of competent jurisdiction, including a State
court, to--
(A) enjoin that practice;
(B) enforce compliance with this Act; or
(C) obtain civil penalties of not more than $1,000 per day
per individual whose sensitive personally identifiable
information was, or is reasonably believed to have been,
accessed or acquired by an unauthorized person, up to a
maximum of $1,000,000 per violation, unless such conduct is
found to be willful or intentional.
(2) Notice.--
(A) In general.--Before filing an action under paragraph
(1), the attorney general of the State involved shall provide
to the Attorney General of the United States--
(i) written notice of the action; and
(ii) a copy of the complaint for the action.
(B) Exemption.--
(i) In general.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply with
respect to the filing of an action by an attorney general of
a State under this Act, if the State attorney general
determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice
described in such subparagraph before the filing of the
action.
(ii) Notification.--In an action described in clause (i),
the attorney general of a State shall provide notice and a
copy of the complaint to the Attorney General at the time the
State attorney general files the action.
(b) Federal Proceedings.--Upon receiving notice under
subsection (a)(2), the Attorney General shall have the right
to--
(1) move to stay the action, pending the final disposition
of a pending Federal proceeding or action;
(2) initiate an action in the appropriate United States
district court under section 8 and move to consolidate all
pending actions, including State actions, in such court;
(3) intervene in an action brought under subsection (a)(2);
and
(4) file petitions for appeal.
(c) Pending Proceedings.--If the Attorney General has
instituted a proceeding or action for a violation of this Act
or any regulations thereunder, no attorney general of a State
may, during the pendency of such proceeding or action, bring
an action under this Act against any defendant named in such
criminal proceeding or civil action for any violation that is
alleged in that proceeding or action.
(d) Rule of Construction.--For purposes of bringing any
civil action under subsection (a), nothing in this Act
regarding notification shall be construed to prevent an
attorney general of a State from exercising the powers
conferred on such attorney general by the laws of that State
to--
(1) conduct investigations;
(2) administer oaths or affirmations; or
(3) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production of
documentary and other evidence.
(e) Venue; Service of Process.--
(1) Venue.--Any action brought under subsection (a) may be
brought in--
(A) the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code; or
(B) another court of competent jurisdiction.
(2) Service of process.--In an action brought under
subsection (a), process may be served in any district in
which the defendant--
(A) is an inhabitant; or
(B) may be found.
(f) No Private Cause of Action.--Nothing in this Act
establishes a private cause of action against a business
entity for violation of any provision of this Act.

SEC. 10. EFFECT ON FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.

The provisions of this Act shall supersede any other
provision of Federal law or any provision of law of any State
relating to notification by a business entity engaged in
interstate commerce or an agency of a security breach, except
as provided in section 5(b).

[[Page S119]]

SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to cover the costs incurred by the United States
Secret Service to carry out investigations and risk
assessments of security breaches as required under this Act.

SEC. 12. REPORTING ON RISK ASSESSMENT EXEMPTIONS.

(a) In General.--The United States Secret Service shall
report to Congress not later than 18 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, and upon the request by Congress
thereafter, on--
(1) the number and nature of the security breaches
described in the notices filed by those business entities
invoking the risk assessment exemption under section 3(b) of
this Act and the response of the United States Secret Service
to such notices; and
(2) the number and nature of security breaches subject to
the national security and law enforcement exemptions under
section 3(a) of this Act.
(b) Report.--Any report submitted under subsection (a)
shall not disclose the contents of any risk assessment
provided to the United States Secret Service under this Act.

SEC. 13. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Agency.--The term ``agency'' has the same meaning given
such term in section 551 of title 5, United States Code.
(2) Affiliate.--The term ``affiliate'' means persons
related by common ownership or by corporate control.
(3) Business entity.--The term ``business entity'' means
any organization, corporation, trust, partnership, sole
proprietorship, unincorporated association, venture
established to make a profit, or nonprofit, and any
contractor, subcontractor, affiliate, or licensee thereof
engaged in interstate commerce.
(4) Encrypted.--The term ``encrypted''--
(A) means the protection of data in electronic form, in
storage or in transit, using an encryption technology that
has been adopted by an established standards setting body
which renders such data indecipherable in the absence of
associated cryptographic keys necessary to enable decryption
of such data; and
(B) includes appropriate management and safeguards of such
cryptographic keys so as to protect the integrity of the
encryption.
(5) Personally identifiable information.--The term
``personally identifiable information'' means any
information, or compilation of information, in electronic or
digital form serving as a means of identification, as defined
by section 1028(d)(7) of title 18, United State Code.
(6) Security breach.--
(A) In general.--The term ``security breach'' means
compromise of the security, confidentiality, or integrity of
computerized data through misrepresentation or actions that
result in, or there is a reasonable basis to conclude has
resulted in, acquisition of or access to sensitive personally
identifiable information that is unauthorized or in excess of
authorization.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``security breach'' does not
include--
(i) a good faith acquisition of sensitive personally
identifiable information by a business entity or agency, or
an employee or agent of a business entity or agency, if the
sensitive personally identifiable information is not subject
to further unauthorized disclosure; or
(ii) the release of a public record not otherwise subject
to confidentiality or nondisclosure requirements.
(7) Sensitive personally identifiable information.--The
term ``sensitive personally identifiable information'' means
any information or compilation of information, in electronic
or digital form that includes--
(A) an individual's first and last name or first initial
and last name in combination with any 1 of the following data
elements:
(i) A non-truncated social security number, driver's
license number, passport number, or alien registration
number.
(ii) Any 2 of the following:

(I) Home address or telephone number.
(II) Mother's maiden name, if identified as such.
(III) Month, day, and year of birth.

(iii) Unique biometric data such as a finger print, voice
print, a retina or iris image, or any other unique physical
representation.
(iv) A unique account identifier, electronic identification
number, user name, or routing code in combination with any
associated security code, access code, or password that is
required for an individual to obtain money, goods, services
or any other thing of value; or
(B) a financial account number or credit or debit card
number in combination with any security code, access code or
password that is required for an individual to obtain credit,
withdraw funds, or engage in a financial transaction.

SEC. 14. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on the expiration of the date
which is 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 140. A bill to modify the requirements applicable to locatable
minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of
self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that will help address the threats to public health and safety caused
by abandoned hardrock mines.
There are as many as 500,000 abandoned mines strewn across the
western states--47,000 alone are found on California's public lands.
The scope of this problem is huge.
In the past two years, eight accidents at abandoned mine sites were
reported in California. Throughout the United States, at least 37
deaths occurred between 1999 and 2007 and the potential for more is
ominous.
Basic remediation efforts, such as warning signs and fencing, can
provide protection.
However, some abandoned mines pose a more serious threat.
Environmental impact studies have shown that important watersheds are
being polluted by high levels of harmful minerals, such as mercury,
lead, arsenic and asbestos. In California alone, seventeen watersheds
have been affected.
Yet not enough is being done to clean up these dangerous Gold Rush-
era mines.
The bill that I am introducing today is not intended to be a
comprehensive hardrock mining bill, but it is an important piece of the
reform needed.
The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2009 will reform the 1872
Mining Law by establishing fees to support abandoned mine clean up;
establishing a royalty payment system; and creating an Abandoned Mine
Clean up Fund.
Unlike the coal industry, the metal mining industry does not pay to
clean up its legacy of abandoned mines, making lack of funding the
primary obstacle to abandoned hardrock mine clean up.
This legislation would help fund the clean up of abandoned mines by
placing an Abandoned Mine Reclamation fee on all hardrock minerals,
using the underground coal industry fee program as a model.
Specifically, it would create a 0.3 percent reclamation fee on the
gross value of all hardrock mineral mining, including mining on
Federal, State, tribal, local and private lands.
The condition of abandoned coal mines has greatly improved since the
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 established a fee to
finance restoration of land abandoned or inadequately restored by coal
mining companies.
This fund has been able to raise billions of dollars for coal mine
reclamation--and I believe that a similar program could be part of the
solution to hardrock abandoned mine clean up.
This legislation establishes a royalty fee on Hardrock Mining Claims.
Companies that mine for gold and silver on Federal lands are not
currently required to pay any royalties to the Federal Government--even
though we are experiencing near record high gold prices.
These companies should be required to pay their fair share.
The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act establishes an 8 percent royalty
on new mining operations located on Federal lands, and a 4 percent
royalty for existing operations.
The legislation I am introducing today also creates an Abandoned Mine
Fund.
In these times of budget deficits, it's clear that we will not be
able to simply appropriate the funds necessary to clean up the hundreds
of thousands of abandoned hard rock mines.
So, this legislation will create an abandoned mine clean up fund to
ensure that we have a lasting source of funding for this critical clean
up effort.
Specifically, the fund will direct the royalties, as well as other
payments collected from mining operations, and dedicate them to the
clean up of abandoned hardrock mines.
I recognize the important role that mining has played in California's
history. The discovery of gold at Sutter Mill near Placerville,
California in 1848 was a defining moment for my State and the U.S.
It is fair to say that without mining and the Gold Rush, California
and the entire country would be a far different place than it is today.
The history of mining in California, however, is tarnished by the
legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned mines. In particular,
abandoned mine sites on Federal lands.
A recent report from the Department of the Interior's Inspector
General underscores the scope and the urgency of

[[Page S120]]

the abandoned mine problem on public lands--in particular, those
managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
The report concluded that public health and safety have been
compromised by mismanagement, funding shortfalls and systematic
neglect.
The report found the potential for more deaths and injuries is
ominous. A number of abandoned mine sites on public lands present an
immediate danger due to open shafts, collapsing mine walls, and rotting
structures. Some have deadly gases that accumulate in underground
passages. And others leach hazardous chemicals like arsenic, lead and
mercury into groundwater.
The Bureau of Land Management's abandoned mines program has been
neglected and understaffed. In some cases, staff were told by their
supervisors to ignore these problems; and those who did come forward to
identify contaminated sites were criticized or outright threatened.
The scope of the problem is less severe at the National Parks
Service. But perennial funding shortfalls impede the clean up of known
abandoned mines.
At the heart of the problem is a century-old law signed by President
Ulysses S. Grant to promote the settlement of publicly-owned lands in
the western states.
The 1872 Mining Law created national standards for hardrock mining
operations on Federal public lands; however, it has not been
substantially updated for 137 years. Under this outdated framework, the
hardrock mining industry does not pay royalties for minerals taken from
Federal land and is not obligated to share in the cost of clean up for
abandoned mines. Since the enactment of this law, hundreds of thousands
of mines have been abandoned.
Congress needs to move swiftly to address this issue before more
damage and accidents occur.
Though this legislation is a significant step forward for the funding
of abandoned mines, I know that there is much more mining reform to be
done.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to modernize our
Nation's mining laws and accelerate the clean up of dangerous abandoned
mines.
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. 140

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Abandoned
Mine Reclamation Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions and references.
Sec. 3. Application rules.

TITLE I--MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Sec. 101. Royalty.
Sec. 102. Hardrock mining claim maintenance fee.
Sec. 103. Reclamation fee.
Sec. 104. Effect of payments for use and occupancy of claims.

TITLE II--ABANDONED MINE CLEANUP FUND

Sec. 201. Establishment of Fund.
Sec. 202. Contents of Fund.
Sec. 203. Use and objectives of the Fund.
Sec. 204. Eligible lands and waters.
Sec. 205. Expenditures.
Sec. 206. Availability of amounts.

TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 301. Effective date.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES.

(a) In General.--As used in this Act:
(1) The term ``affiliate'' means with respect to any
person, any of the following:
(A) Any person who controls, is controlled by, or is under
common control with such person.
(B) Any partner of such person.
(C) Any person owning at least 10 percent of the voting
shares of such person.
(2) The term ``applicant'' means any person applying for a
permit under this Act or a modification to or a renewal of a
permit under this Act.
(3) The term ``beneficiation'' means the crushing and
grinding of locatable mineral ore and such processes as are
employed to free the mineral from other constituents,
including but not necessarily limited to, physical and
chemical separation techniques.
(4) The term ``claim holder'' means a person holding a
mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim located
under the general mining laws and maintained in compliance
with such laws and this Act. Such term may include an agent
of a claim holder.
(5) The term ``control'' means having the ability, directly
or indirectly, to determine (without regard to whether
exercised through one or more corporate structures) the
manner in which an entity conducts mineral activities,
through any means, including without limitation, ownership
interest, authority to commit the entity's real or financial
assets, position as a director, officer, or partner of the
entity, or contractual arrangement.
(6) The term ``exploration''--
(A) subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), means creating
surface disturbance other than casual use, to evaluate the
type, extent, quantity, or quality of minerals present;
(B) includes mineral activities associated with sampling,
drilling, and analyzing locatable mineral values; and
(C) does not include extraction of mineral material for
commercial use or sale.
(7) The term ``Federal land'' means any land, and any
interest in land, that is owned by the United States and open
to location of mining claims under the general mining laws.
(8) The term ``hardrock mineral'' has the meaning given the
term ``locatable mineral'' except that legal and beneficial
title to the mineral need not be held by the United States.
(9) The term ``Indian lands'' means lands held in trust for
the benefit of an Indian tribe or individual or held by an
Indian tribe or individual subject to a restriction by the
United States against alienation.
(10) The term ``Indian tribe'' means any Indian tribe,
band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community,
including any Alaska Native village or regional corporation
as defined in or established pursuant to the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), that is
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services
provided by the United States to Indians because of their
status as Indians.
(11) The term ``locatable mineral''--
(A) subject to subparagraph (B), means any mineral, the
legal and beneficial title to which remains in the United
States and that is not subject to disposition under any of--
(i) the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.);
(ii) the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 1001 et
seq.);
(iii) the Act of July 31, 1947, commonly known as the
Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); or
(iv) the Mineral Leasing for Acquired Lands Act (30 U.S.C.
351 et seq.); and
(B) does not include any mineral that is subject to a
restriction against alienation imposed by the United States
and is--
(i) held in trust by the United States for any Indian or
Indian tribe, as defined in section 2 of the Indian Mineral
Development Act of 1982 (25 U.S.C. 2101); or
(ii) owned by any Indian or Indian tribe, as defined in
that section.
(12) The term ``mineral activities'' means any activity on
a mining claim, millsite claim, or tunnel site claim for,
related to, or incidental to, mineral exploration, mining,
beneficiation, processing, or reclamation activities for any
locatable mineral.
(13) The term ``operator'' means any person proposing or
authorized by a permit issued under this Act to conduct
mineral activities and any agent of such person.
(14) The term ``person'' means an individual, Indian tribe,
partnership, association, society, joint venture, joint stock
company, firm, company, corporation, cooperative, or other
organization and any instrumentality of State or local
government including any publicly owned utility or publicly
owned corporation of State or local government.
(15) The term ``processing'' means processes downstream of
beneficiation employed to prepare locatable mineral ore into
the final marketable product, including but not limited to
smelting and electrolytic refining.
(16) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Interior, unless otherwise specified.
(17) The term ``temporary cessation'' means a halt in mine-
related production activities for a continuous period of no
longer than 5 years.
(b) References to Other Laws.--(1) Any reference in this
Act to the term general mining laws is a reference to those
Acts that generally comprise chapters 2, 12A, and 16, and
sections 161 and 162, of title 30, United States Code.
(2) Any reference in this Act to the Act of July 23, 1955,
is a reference to the Act entitled ``An Act to amend the Act
of July 31, 1947 (61 Stat. 681) and the mining laws to
provide for multiple use of the surface of the same tracts of
the public lands, and for other purposes'' (30 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.).

SEC. 3. APPLICATION RULES.

(a) In General.--This Act applies to any mining claim,
millsite claim, or tunnel site claim located under the
general mining laws, before, on, or after the date of
enactment of this Act, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Preexisting Claims.--(1) Any unpatented mining claim or
millsite claim located under the general mining laws before
the date of enactment of this Act for which a plan of
operation has not been approved or a notice filed prior to
the date of enactment shall, upon the effective date of this
Act, be subject to the requirements of this Act, except as
provided in paragraph (2).

[[Page S121]]

(2)(A) If a plan of operations is approved for mineral
activities on any claim or site referred to in paragraph (1)
prior to the date of enactment of this Act but such
operations have not commenced prior to the date of enactment
of this Act--
(i) during the 10-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of this Act, mineral activities at such claim or
site shall be subject to such plan of operations;
(ii) during such 10-year period, modifications of any such
plan may be made in accordance with the provisions of law
applicable prior to the enactment of this Act if such
modifications are deemed minor by the Secretary concerned;
and
(iii) the operator shall bring such mineral activities into
compliance with this Act by the end of such 10-year period.
(B) Where an application for modification of a plan of
operations referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii) has been
timely submitted and an approved plan expires prior to
Secretarial action on the application, mineral activities and
reclamation may continue in accordance with the terms of the
expired plan until the Secretary makes an administrative
decision on the application.
(c) Federal Lands Subject to Existing Permit.--(1) Any
Federal land shall be subject to the requirements of section
101(a)(2) if the land is--
(A) subject to an operations permit; and
(B) producing valuable locatable minerals in commercial
quantities prior to the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Any Federal land added through a plan modification to
an operations permit on Federal land that is submitted after
the date of enactment of this Act shall be subject to the
terms of section 101(a)(3).
(d) Application of Act to Beneficiation and Processing of
Non-Federal Minerals on Federal Lands.--The provisions of
this Act shall apply in the same manner and to the same
extent to mining claims, millsite claims, and tunnel site
claims used for beneficiation or processing activities for
any mineral without regard to whether or not the legal and
beneficial title to the mineral is held by the United States.
This subsection applies only to minerals that are locatable
minerals or minerals that would be locatable minerals if the
legal and beneficial title to such minerals were held by the
United States.

TITLE I--MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

SEC. 101. ROYALTY.

(a) Reservation of Royalty.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2) and
subject to paragraph (3), production of all locatable
minerals from any mining claim located under the general
mining laws and maintained in compliance with this Act, or
mineral concentrates or products derived from locatable
minerals from any such mining claim, as the case may be,
shall be subject to a royalty of 8 percent of the gross
income from mining. The claim holder or any operator to whom
the claim holder has assigned the obligation to make royalty
payments under the claim and any person who controls such
claim holder or operator shall be liable for payment of such
royalties.
(2) Royalty for federal lands subject to existing permit.--
The royalty under paragraph (1) shall be 4 percent in the
case of any Federal land that--
(A) is subject to an operations permit on the date of the
enactment of this Act; and
(B) produces valuable locatable minerals in commercial
quantities on the date of enactment of this Act.
(3) Federal land added to existing operations permit.--Any
Federal land added through a plan modification to an
operations permit that is submitted after the date of
enactment of this Act shall be subject to the royalty that
applies to Federal land under paragraph (1).
(4) Deposit.--Amounts received by the United States as
royalties under this subsection shall be deposited into the
Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund established by section 201(a).
(b) Duties of Claim Holders, Operators, and Transporters.--
(1) A person--
(A) who is required to make any royalty payment under this
section shall make such payments to the United States at such
times and in such manner as the Secretary may by rule
prescribe; and
(B) shall notify the Secretary, in the time and manner as
may be specified by the Secretary, of any assignment that
such person may have made of the obligation to make any
royalty or other payment under a mining claim.
(2) Any person paying royalties under this section shall
file a written instrument, together with the first royalty
payment, affirming that such person is responsible for making
proper payments for all amounts due for all time periods for
which such person has a payment responsibility. Such
responsibility for the periods referred to in the preceding
sentence shall include any and all additional amounts billed
by the Secretary and determined to be due by final agency or
judicial action. Any person liable for royalty payments under
this section who assigns any payment obligation shall remain
jointly and severally liable for all royalty payments due for
the claim for the period.
(3) A person conducting mineral activities shall--
(A) develop and comply with the site security provisions in
the operations permit designed to protect from theft the
locatable minerals, concentrates or products derived
therefrom which are produced or stored on a mining claim, and
such provisions shall conform with such minimum standards as
the Secretary may prescribe by rule, taking into account the
variety of circumstances on mining claims; and
(B) not later than the 5th business day after production
begins anywhere on a mining claim, or production resumes
after more than 90 days after production was suspended,
notify the Secretary, in the manner prescribed by the
Secretary, of the date on which such production has begun or
resumed.
(4) The Secretary may by rule require any person engaged in
transporting a locatable mineral, concentrate, or product
derived therefrom to carry on his or her person, in his or
her vehicle, or in his or her immediate control,
documentation showing, at a minimum, the amount, origin, and
intended destination of the locatable mineral, concentrate,
or product derived therefrom in such circumstances as the
Secretary determines is appropriate.
(c) Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.--A claim
holder, operator, or other person directly involved in
developing, producing, processing, transporting, purchasing,
or selling locatable minerals, concentrates, or products
derived therefrom, subject to this Act, through the point of
royalty computation shall establish and maintain any records,
make any reports, and provide any information that the
Secretary may reasonably require for the purposes of
implementing this section or determining compliance with
rules or orders under this section. Such records shall
include, but not be limited to, periodic reports, records,
documents, and other data. Such reports may also include, but
not be limited to, pertinent technical and financial data
relating to the quantity, quality, composition volume,
weight, and assay of all minerals extracted from the mining
claim. Upon the request of any officer or employee duly
designated by the Secretary conducting an audit or
investigation pursuant to this section, the appropriate
records, reports, or information that may be required by this
section shall be made available for inspection and
duplication by such officer or employee. Failure by a claim
holder, operator, or other person referred to in the first
sentence to cooperate with such an audit, provide data
required by the Secretary, or grant access to information
may, at the discretion of the Secretary, result in
involuntary forfeiture of the claim.
(d) Audits.--The Secretary is authorized to conduct such
audits of all claim holders, operators, transporters,
purchasers, processors, or other persons directly or
indirectly involved in the production or sales of minerals
covered by this Act, as the Secretary deems necessary for the
purposes of ensuring compliance with the requirements of this
section. For purposes of performing such audits, the
Secretary shall, at reasonable times and upon request, have
access to, and may copy, all books, papers and other
documents that relate to compliance with any provision of
this section by any person.
(e) Cooperative Agreements.--(1) The Secretary is
authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the
Secretary of Agriculture to share information concerning the
royalty management of locatable minerals, concentrates, or
products derived therefrom, to carry out inspection,
auditing, investigation, or enforcement (not including the
collection of royalties, civil or criminal penalties, or
other payments) activities under this section in cooperation
with the Secretary, and to carry out any other activity
described in this section.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection
(relating to trade secrets), and pursuant to a cooperative
agreement, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, upon request,
have access to all royalty accounting information in the
possession of the Secretary respecting the production,
removal, or sale of locatable minerals, concentrates, or
products derived therefrom from claims on lands open to
location under this Act.
(3) Trade secrets, proprietary, and other confidential
information protected from disclosure under section 552 of
title 5, United States Code, popularly known as the Freedom
of Information Act, shall be made available by the Secretary
to other Federal agencies as necessary to assure compliance
with this Act and other Federal laws. The Secretary, the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and other Federal officials
shall ensure that such information is provided protection in
accordance with the requirements of that section.
(f) Interest and Substantial Underreporting Assessments.--
(1) In the case of mining claims where royalty payments are
not received by the Secretary on the date that such payments
are due, the Secretary shall charge interest on such
underpayments at the same interest rate as the rate
applicable under section 6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986. In the case of an underpayment, interest shall
be computed and charged only on the amount of the deficiency
and not on the total amount.
(2) If there is any underreporting of royalty owed on
production from a claim for any production month by any
person liable for royalty payments under this section, the
Secretary shall assess a penalty of not greater than 25
percent of the amount of that underreporting.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term
``underreporting'' means the difference

[[Page S122]]

between the royalty on the value of the production that
should have been reported and the royalty on the value of the
production which was reported, if the value that should have
been reported is greater than the value that was reported.
(4) The Secretary may waive or reduce the assessment
provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection if the person
liable for royalty payments under this section corrects the
underreporting before the date such person receives notice
from the Secretary that an underreporting may have occurred,
or before 90 days after the date of the enactment of this
section, whichever is later.
(5) The Secretary shall waive any portion of an assessment
under paragraph (2) of this subsection attributable to that
portion of the underreporting for which the person
responsible for paying the royalty demonstrates that--
(A) such person had written authorization from the
Secretary to report royalty on the value of the production on
basis on which it was reported;
(B) such person had substantial authority for reporting
royalty on the value of the production on the basis on which
it was reported;
(C) such person previously had notified the Secretary, in
such manner as the Secretary may by rule prescribe, of
relevant reasons or facts affecting the royalty treatment of
specific production which led to the underreporting; or
(D) such person meets any other exception which the
Secretary may, by rule, establish.
(6) All penalties collected under this subsection shall be
deposited in the Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund established by
section 201(a).
(g) Delegation.--For the purposes of this section, the term
``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior acting
through the Director of the Minerals Management Service.
(h) Expanded Royalty Obligations.--Each person liable for
royalty payments under this section shall be jointly and
severally liable for royalty on all locatable minerals,
concentrates, or products derived therefrom lost or wasted
from a mining claim located under the general mining laws and
maintained in compliance with this Act when such loss or
waste is due to negligence on the part of any person or due
to the failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order
issued under this section.
(i) Gross Income From Mining Defined.--For the purposes of
this section, for any locatable mineral, the term ``gross
income from mining'' has the same meaning as the term ``gross
income'' in section 613(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986.
(j) Effective Date.--The royalty under this section shall
take effect with respect to the production of locatable
minerals after the enactment of this Act, but any royalty
payments attributable to production during the first 12
calendar months after the enactment of this Act shall be
payable at the expiration of such 12-month period.
(k) Failure To Comply With Royalty Requirements.--Any
person who fails to comply with the requirements of this
section or any regulation or order issued to implement this
section shall be liable for a civil penalty under section 109
of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (30 U.S.C.
1719) to the same extent as if the claim located under the
general mining laws and maintained in compliance with this
Act were a lease under that Act.

SEC. 102. HARDROCK MINING CLAIM MAINTENANCE FEE.

(a) Fee.--
(1) Except as provided in section 2511(e)(2) of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (relating to oil shale claims), for each
unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site on federally
owned lands, whether located before, on, or after enactment
of this Act, each claimant shall pay to the Secretary, on or
before August 31 of each year, a claim maintenance fee of
$300 per claim to hold such unpatented mining claim, mill or
tunnel site for the assessment year beginning at noon on the
next day, September 1. Such claim maintenance fee shall be in
lieu of the assessment work requirement contained in the
Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) and the related
filing requirements contained in section 314(a) and (c) of
the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1744(a) and (c)).
(2)(A) The claim maintenance fee required under this
subsection shall be waived for a claimant who certifies in
writing to the Secretary that on the date the payment was
due, the claimant and all related parties--
(i) held not more than 10 mining claims, mill sites, or
tunnel sites, or any combination thereof, on public lands;
and
(ii) have performed assessment work required under the
Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) to maintain the
mining claims held by the claimant and such related parties
for the assessment year ending on noon of September 1 of the
calendar year in which payment of the claim maintenance fee
was due.
(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), with respect to any
claimant, the term ``all related parties'' means--
(i) the spouse and dependent children (as defined in
section 152 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), of the
claimant; or
(ii) a person affiliated with the claimant, including--
(I) a person controlled by, controlling, or under common
control with the claimant; or
(II) a subsidiary or parent company or corporation of the
claimant.
(3)(A) The Secretary shall adjust the fees required by this
subsection to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department
of Labor every 5 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, or more frequently if the Secretary determines an
adjustment to be reasonable.
(B) The Secretary shall provide claimants notice of any
adjustment made under this paragraph not later than July 1 of
any year in which the adjustment is made.
(C) A fee adjustment under this paragraph shall begin to
apply the calendar year following the calendar year in which
it is made.
(4) Moneys received under this subsection that are not
otherwise allocated for the administration of the mining laws
by the Department of the Interior shall be deposited in the
Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund established by section 201(a).
(b) Location.--
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law, for every
unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site located after
the date of enactment of this Act and before September 30,
1998, the locator shall, at the time the location notice is
recorded with the Bureau of Land Management, pay to the
Secretary a location fee, in addition to the fee required by
subsection (a) of $50 per claim.
(2) Moneys received under this subsection that are not
otherwise allocated for the administration of the mining laws
by the Department of the Interior shall be deposited in the
Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund established by section 201(a).
(c) Transfer.--
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law, for every
unpatented mining claim, mill, or tunnel site the ownership
interest of which is transferred after the date of enactment
of this Act, the transferee shall, at the time the transfer
document is recorded with the Bureau of Land Management, pay
to the Secretary a transfer fee, in addition to the fee
required by subsection (a) of $100 per claim.
(2) Moneys received under this subsection that are not
otherwise allocated for the administration of the mining laws
by the Department of the Interior shall be deposited in the
Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund established by section 201(a).
(d) Co-Ownership.--The co-ownership provisions of the
Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 28 et seq.) will remain in
effect except that the annual claim maintenance fee, where
applicable, shall replace applicable assessment requirements
and expenditures.
(e) Failure To Pay.--Failure to pay the claim maintenance
fee as required by subsection (a) shall conclusively
constitute a forfeiture of the unpatented mining claim, mill
or tunnel site by the claimant and the claim shall be deemed
null and void by operation of law.
(f) Other Requirements.--
(1) Nothing in this section shall change or modify the
requirements of section 314(b) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(b)), or the
requirements of section 314(c) of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1744(c)) related to filings
required by section 314(b) of that Act, which remain in
effect.
(2) Section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States (30 U.S.C. 28) is amended by inserting ``or section
102 of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2009'' after
``Act of 1993,''.

SEC. 103. RECLAMATION FEE.

(a) Imposition of Fee.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each
operator of a hardrock minerals mining operation shall pay to
the Secretary, for deposit in the Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund
established by section 201(a), a reclamation fee of 0.3
percent of the gross income of the hardrock minerals mining
operation for each calendar year.
(2) Exception.--With respect to any calendar year required
under subsection (b), an operator of a hardrock minerals
mining operation shall not be required to pay the reclamation
fee under paragraph (1) if--
(A) the gross annual income of the hardrock minerals mining
operation for the calendar year is an amount less than
$500,000; and
(B) the hardrock minerals mining operation is comprised
of--
(i) 1 or more hardrock mineral mines located in a single
patented claim; or
(ii) 2 or more contiguous patented claims.
(b) Payment Deadline.--The reclamation fee shall be paid
not later than 60 days after the end of each calendar year
beginning with the first calendar year occurring after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(c) Deposit of Revenues.--Amounts received by the Secretary
under subsection (a)(1) shall be deposited into the Abandoned
Mine Cleanup Fund established by section 201(a).
(d) Effect.--Nothing in this section requires a reduction
in, or otherwise affects, any similar fee required under any
law (including regulations) of any State.

SEC. 104. EFFECT OF PAYMENTS FOR USE AND OCCUPANCY OF CLAIMS.

Timely payment of the claim maintenance fee required by
section 102(a) of this Act or any related law relating to the
use of Federal land, asserts the claimant's authority to use
and occupy the Federal land concerned for prospecting and
exploration, consistent with the requirements of this Act and
other applicable law.

[[Page S123]]

TITLE II--ABANDONED MINE CLEANUP FUND

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.

(a) Establishment.--There is established on the books of
the Treasury of the United States a separate account to be
known as the Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund (hereinafter in this
title referred to as the ``Fund'').
(b) Investment.--The Secretary shall notify the Secretary
of the Treasury as to what portion of the Fund is not, in the
Secretary's judgment, required to meet current withdrawals.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of
the Fund in public debt securities with maturities suitable
for the needs of such Fund and bearing interest at rates
determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, taking into
consideration current market yields on outstanding
marketplace obligations of the United States of comparable
maturities.

SEC. 202. CONTENTS OF FUND.

The following amounts shall be credited to the Fund:
(1) All donations by persons, corporations, associations,
and foundations for the purposes of this title.
(2) All amounts deposited in the Fund under section 101
(relating to royalties and penalties for underreporting).
(3) All amounts received by the United States pursuant to
section 102 as claim maintenance, location, and transfer fees
minus the moneys allocated for administration of the mining
laws by the Department of the Interior.
(4) All amounts received by the Secretary in accordance
with section 103(a).
(5) All income on investments under section 201(b).

SEC. 203. USE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FUND.

(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, without
further appropriation, to use moneys in the Fund for the
reclamation and restoration of land and water resources
adversely affected by past mineral activities on lands the
legal and beneficial title to which resides in the United
States, land within the exterior boundary of any national
forest system unit, or other lands described in subsection
(d), including any of the following:
(1) Protecting public health and safety.
(2) Preventing, abating, treating, and controlling water
pollution created by abandoned mine drainage, including in
river watershed areas.
(3) Reclaiming and restoring abandoned surface and
underground mined areas.
(4) Reclaiming and restoring abandoned milling and
processing areas.
(5) Backfilling, sealing, or otherwise controlling,
abandoned underground mine entries.
(6) Revegetating land adversely affected by past mineral
activities in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation, to
enhance wildlife habitat, and for any other reclamation
purpose.
(7) Controlling of surface subsidence due to abandoned
underground mines.
(b) Allocation.--Expenditures of moneys from the Fund shall
reflect the following priorities in the order stated:
(1) The protection of public health and safety, from
extreme danger from the adverse effects of past mineral
activities, especially as relates to surface water and
groundwater contaminants.
(2) The protection of public health and safety, from the
adverse effects of past mineral activities.
(3) The restoration of land, water, and fish and wildlife
resources previously degraded by the adverse effects of past
mineral activities, which may include restoration activities
in river watershed areas.
(c) Habitat.--Reclamation and restoration activities under
this title, particularly those identified under subsection
(a)(4), shall include appropriate mitigation measures to
provide for the continuation of any established habitat for
wildlife in existence prior to the commencement of such
activities.
(d) Other Affected Lands.--Where mineral exploration,
mining, beneficiation, processing, or reclamation activities
have been carried out with respect to any mineral which would
be a locatable mineral if the legal and beneficial title to
the mineral were in the United States, if such activities
directly affect lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management as well as other lands and if the legal and
beneficial title to more than 50 percent of the affected
lands resides in the United States, the Secretary is
authorized, subject to appropriations, to use moneys in the
Fund for reclamation and restoration under subsection (a) for
all directly affected lands.
(e) Response or Removal Actions.--Reclamation and
restoration activities under this title which constitute a
removal or remedial action under section 101 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601), shall be conducted
with the concurrence of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. The Secretary and the
Administrator shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding
to establish procedures for consultation, concurrence,
training, exchange of technical expertise and joint
activities under the appropriate circumstances, that provide
assurances that reclamation or restoration activities under
this title shall not be conducted in a manner that increases
the costs or likelihood of removal or remedial actions under
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), and that
avoid oversight by multiple agencies to the maximum extent
practicable.

SEC. 204. ELIGIBLE LANDS AND WATERS.

(a) Eligibility.--Reclamation expenditures under this title
may be made with respect to Federal, State, local, tribal,
and private land or water resources that traverse or are
contiguous to Federal, State, local, tribal, or private land
where such lands or water resources have been affected by
past mineral activities, including any of the following:
(1) Lands and water resources which were used for, or
affected by, mineral activities and abandoned or left in an
inadequate reclamation status before the effective date of
this Act.
(2) Lands for which the Secretary makes a determination
that there is no continuing reclamation responsibility of a
claim holder, operator, or other person who abandoned the
site prior to completion of required reclamation under State
or other Federal laws.
(b) Specific Sites and Areas Not Eligible.--The provisions
of section 411(d) of the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1240a(d)) shall apply to
expenditures made from the Fund.
(c) Inventory.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall prepare and maintain a
publicly available inventory of abandoned locatable minerals
mines on public lands and any abandoned mine on Indian lands
that may be eligible for expenditures under this title, and
shall deliver a yearly report to the Congress on the progress
in cleanup of such sites.
(2) Priority.--In preparing and maintaining the inventory
described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall give priority
to abandoned locatable minerals mines in accordance with
section 203(b).
(3) Periodic updates.--Not later than 5 years after the
date of enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter,
the Secretary shall update the inventory described in
paragraph (1).

SEC. 205. EXPENDITURES.

Moneys available from the Fund may be expended for the
purposes specified in section 203 directly by the Director of
the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. The
Director may also make such money available for such purposes
to the Director of the Bureau of Land Management, the Chief
of the United States Forest Service, the Director of the
National Park Service, or Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service, to any other agency of the United
States, to an Indian tribe, or to any public entity that
volunteers to develop and implement, and that has the ability
to carry out, all or a significant portion of a reclamation
program under this title.

SEC. 206. AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS.

Amounts credited to the Fund shall--
(1) be available, without further appropriation, for
obligation and expenditure; and
(2) remain available until expended.

TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 301. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this
Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Gregg, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 141. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to limit the
misuse of Social Security numbers, to establish criminal penalties for
such misuse, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation
to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets:
Social Security numbers.
The bill I am introducing today aims to protect individual privacy
and prevent identity theft by eliminating the unnecessary use and
display of Social Security numbers.
I have been working since the 106th Congress to safeguard Social
Security numbers. I believe that the widespread display and use of
these numbers poses a significant, and entirely preventable threat to
personal privacy.
In 1935, Congress authorized the Social Security Administration to
issue Social Security numbers as part of the Social Security program.
Since that time, Social Security numbers have become the best-known and
easiest way to identify individuals in the United States.
Use of these numbers has expanded well beyond their original purpose.
Social Security numbers are now used for everything from credit checks
to rental agreements to employment verifications, among other purposes.
They can be found in privately held databases and on public records--
including marriage licenses, professional certifications, and countless
other public documents--many of which are available on the Internet.
Once accessed, the numbers act like keys--allowing thieves to open
credit card and bank accounts and even begin applying for government
benefits.
According to the Federal Trade Commission, as many as 10 million
Americans have their identities stolen by

[[Page S124]]

such thieves each year--at a combined cost of billions of dollars.
What's worse, victims often do not realize that a theft has occurred
until much later, when they learn that their credit has been destroyed
by unpaid debt on fraudulently opened accounts.
One thief stole a retired Army captain's military identification card
and used his Social Security number, listed on the card, to go on a 6-
month, $260,000 shopping spree. By the time the Army captain realized
what had happened, the thief had opened more than 60 fraudulent
accounts.
A single mother of two went to file her taxes and learned that a
fraudulent return had already been filed in her name by someone else--a
thief who wanted her refund check.
A former pro-football player received a phone call notifying him that
a $1 million home mortgage loan had been approved in his name even
though he had never applied for such a loan.
Identity theft is serious. Once an individual's identity is stolen,
people are often subjected to countless hours and costs attempting to
regain their good name and credit. In 2004, victims spent an average of
300 hours recovering from the crime. The crime disrupts lives and can
destroy finances.
It also hurts business. A 2006 online survey by the Business Software
Alliance and Harris Interactive found that nearly 30 percent of adults
decided to shop online less or not at all during the holiday season
because of fears about identity theft.
When people's identities are stolen, they often do not know how the
thieves obtained their personal information. Social security numbers
and other key identifying data are displayed and used in such a
widespread manner that individuals could not successfully restrict
access themselves.
Comprehensive limitations on the display of Social Security numbers
are critically needed.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted studies of this
problem in 2002 and 2007. Both times--in studies entitled ``Social
Security numbers Are Widely Used by Government and Could Be Better
Protected'' and ``Social Security numbers: Use Is Widespread and Could
Be Improved''--the GAO concluded that current protections are
insufficient and that serious vulnerabilities remain.
The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would
require government agencies and businesses to do more to protect
Americans' Social Security numbers. The bill would stop the sale or
display of a person's Social Security number without his or her express
consent; prevent Federal, State and local governments from displaying
Social Security numbers on public records posted on the Internet;
prohibit the printing of Social Security numbers on government checks;
prohibit the employing of inmates for tasks that give them access to
the Social Security numbers of other individuals; limit the
circumstances in which businesses could ask a customer for his or her
Social Security number; commission a study by the Attorney General
regarding the current uses of Social Security numbers and the impact on
privacy and data security; and institute criminal and civil penalties
for misuse of Social Security numbers.
This legislation is simple. It is also critical to stopping the
growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and
its citizens.
As the President's Identity Theft Task Force reported last year,
``[i]dentity theft depends on access to . . . data. Reducing the
opportunities for thieves to get the data is critical to fighting the
crime.''
Every agency to study this problem has agreed that the problem will
continue to grow over time and that action is needed.
I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Privacy of Social
Security Numbers Act. 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. 141

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting
the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Prohibition of the display, sale, or purchase of Social
Security numbers.
Sec. 4. Application of prohibition of the display, sale, or purchase of
Social Security numbers to public records.
Sec. 5. Rulemaking authority of the Attorney General.
Sec. 6. Treatment of Social Security numbers on government documents.
Sec. 7. Limits on personal disclosure of a Social Security number for
consumer transactions.
Sec. 8. Extension of civil monetary penalties for misuse of a Social
Security number.
Sec. 9. Criminal penalties for the misuse of a Social Security number.
Sec. 10. Civil actions and civil penalties.
Sec. 11. Federal injunctive authority.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The inappropriate display, sale, or purchase of Social
Security numbers has contributed to a growing range of
illegal activities, including fraud, identity theft, and, in
some cases, stalking and other violent crimes.
(2) While financial institutions, health care providers,
and other entities have often used Social Security numbers to
confirm the identity of an individual, the general display to
the public, sale, or purchase of these numbers has been used
to commit crimes, and also can result in serious invasions of
individual privacy.
(3) The Federal Government requires virtually every
individual in the United States to obtain and maintain a
Social Security number in order to pay taxes, to qualify for
Social Security benefits, or to seek employment. An
unintended consequence of these requirements is that Social
Security numbers have become one of the tools that can be
used to facilitate crime, fraud, and invasions of the privacy
of the individuals to whom the numbers are assigned. Because
the Federal Government created and maintains this system, and
because the Federal Government does not permit individuals to
exempt themselves from those requirements, it is appropriate
for the Federal Government to take steps to stem the abuse of
Social Security numbers.
(4) The display, sale, or purchase of Social Security
numbers in no way facilitates uninhibited, robust, and wide-
open public debate, and restrictions on such display, sale,
or purchase would not affect public debate.
(5) No one should seek to profit from the display, sale, or
purchase of Social Security numbers in circumstances that
create a substantial risk of physical, emotional, or
financial harm to the individuals to whom those numbers are
assigned.
(6) Consequently, this Act provides each individual that
has been assigned a Social Security number some degree of
protection from the display, sale, and purchase of that
number in any circumstance that might facilitate unlawful
conduct.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION OF THE DISPLAY, SALE, OR PURCHASE OF
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.

(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1028A the
following:

``Sec. 1028B. Prohibition of the display, sale, or purchase
of Social Security numbers

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Display.--The term `display' means to intentionally
communicate or otherwise make available (on the Internet or
in any other manner) to the general public an individual's
Social Security number.
``(2) Person.--The term `person' means any individual,
partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative,
association, or any other entity.
``(3) Purchase.--The term `purchase' means providing
directly or indirectly, anything of value in exchange for a
Social Security number.
``(4) Sale.--The term `sale' means obtaining, directly or
indirectly, anything of value in exchange for a Social
Security number.
``(5) State.--The term `State' means any State of the
United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the
Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands,
Guam, American Samoa, and any territory or possession of the
United States.
``(b) Limitation on Display.--Except as provided in section
1028C, no person may display any individual's Social Security
number to the general public without the affirmatively
expressed consent of the individual.
``(c) Limitation on Sale or Purchase.--Except as otherwise
provided in this section, no person may sell or purchase any
individual's Social Security number without the affirmatively
expressed consent of the individual.
``(d) Prerequisites for Consent.--In order for consent to
exist under subsection (b) or (c), the person displaying or
seeking to display, selling or attempting to sell, or
purchasing or attempting to purchase, an individual's Social
Security number shall--
``(1) inform the individual of the general purpose for
which the number will be used, the types of persons to whom
the number may be available, and the scope of transactions
permitted by the consent; and

[[Page S125]]

``(2) obtain the affirmatively expressed consent
(electronically or in writing) of the individual.
``(e) Exceptions.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to prohibit or limit the display, sale, or purchase
of a Social Security number--
``(1) required, authorized, or excepted under any Federal
law;
``(2) for a public health purpose, including the protection
of the health or safety of an individual in an emergency
situation;
``(3) for a national security purpose;
``(4) for a law enforcement purpose, including the
investigation of fraud and the enforcement of a child support
obligation;
``(5) if the display, sale, or purchase of the number is
for a use occurring as a result of an interaction between
businesses, governments, or business and government
(regardless of which entity initiates the interaction),
including, but not limited to--
``(A) the prevention of fraud (including fraud in
protecting an employee's right to employment benefits);
``(B) the facilitation of credit checks or the facilitation
of background checks of employees, prospective employees, or
volunteers;
``(C) the retrieval of other information from other
businesses, commercial enterprises, government entities, or
private nonprofit organizations; or
``(D) when the transmission of the number is incidental to,
and in the course of, the sale, lease, franchising, or merger
of all, or a portion of, a business;
``(6) if the transfer of such a number is part of a data
matching program involving a Federal, State, or local agency;
or
``(7) if such number is required to be submitted as part of
the process for applying for any type of Federal, State, or
local government benefit or program;
except that, nothing in this subsection shall be construed as
permitting a professional or commercial user to display or
sell a Social Security number to the general public.
``(f) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall prohibit
or limit the display, sale, or purchase of Social Security
numbers as permitted under title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act, or for the purpose of affiliate sharing as permitted
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, except that no entity
regulated under such Acts may make Social Security numbers
available to the general public, as may be determined by the
appropriate regulators under such Acts. For purposes of this
subsection, the general public shall not include affiliates
or unaffiliated third-party business entities as may be
defined by the appropriate regulators.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1028 the following:

``1028B. Prohibition of the display, sale, or purchase of Social
Security numbers.''.
(b) Study; Report.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General shall conduct a study
and prepare a report on all of the uses of Social Security
numbers permitted, required, authorized, or excepted under
any Federal law. The report shall include a detailed
description of the uses allowed as of the date of enactment
of this Act, the impact of such uses on privacy and data
security, and shall evaluate whether such uses should be
continued or discontinued by appropriate legislative action.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall report to
Congress findings under this subsection. The report shall
include such recommendations for legislation based on
criteria the Attorney General determines to be appropriate.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 30 days after the date
on which the final regulations promulgated under section 5
are published in the Federal Register.

SEC. 4. APPLICATION OF PROHIBITION OF THE DISPLAY, SALE, OR
PURCHASE OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS TO PUBLIC
RECORDS.

(a) Public Records Exception.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code
(as amended by section 3(a)(1)), is amended by inserting
after section 1028B the following:

``Sec. 1028C. Display, sale, or purchase of public records
containing Social Security numbers

``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `public
record' means any governmental record that is made available
to the general public.
``(b) In General.--Except as provided in subsections (c),
(d), and (e), section 1028B shall not apply to a public
record.
``(c) Public Records on the Internet or in an Electronic
Medium.--
``(1) In general.--Section 1028B shall apply to any public
record first posted onto the Internet or provided in an
electronic medium by, or on behalf of a government entity
after the date of enactment of this section, except as
limited by the Attorney General in accordance with paragraph
(2).
``(2) Exception for government entities already placing
public records on the internet or in electronic form.--Not
later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this
section, the Attorney General shall issue regulations
regarding the applicability of section 1028B to any record of
a category of public records first posted onto the Internet
or provided in an electronic medium by, or on behalf of a
government entity prior to the date of enactment of this
section. The regulations will determine which individual
records within categories of records of these government
entities, if any, may continue to be posted on the Internet
or in electronic form after the effective date of this
section. In promulgating these regulations, the Attorney
General may include in the regulations a set of procedures
for implementing the regulations and shall consider the
following:
``(A) The cost and availability of technology available to
a governmental entity to redact Social Security numbers from
public records first provided in electronic form after the
effective date of this section.
``(B) The cost or burden to the general public, businesses,
commercial enterprises, non-profit organizations, and to
Federal, State, and local governments of complying with
section 1028B with respect to such records.
``(C) The benefit to the general public, businesses,
commercial enterprises, non-profit organizations, and to
Federal, State, and local governments if the Attorney General
were to determine that section 1028B should apply to such
records.
Nothing in the regulation shall permit a public entity to
post a category of public records on the Internet or in
electronic form after the effective date of this section if
such category had not been placed on the Internet or in
electronic form prior to such effective date.
``(d) Harvested Social Security Numbers.--Section 1028B
shall apply to any public record of a government entity which
contains Social Security numbers extracted from other public
records for the purpose of displaying or selling such numbers
to the general public.
``(e) Attorney General Rulemaking on Paper Records.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this section, the Attorney General shall
determine the feasibility and advisability of applying
section 1028B to the records listed in paragraph (2) when
they appear on paper or on another nonelectronic medium. If
the Attorney General deems it appropriate, the Attorney
General may issue regulations applying section 1028B to such
records.
``(2) List of paper and other nonelectronic records.--The
records listed in this paragraph are as follows:
``(A) Professional or occupational licenses.
``(B) Marriage licenses.
``(C) Birth certificates.
``(D) Death certificates.
``(E) Other short public documents that display a Social
Security number in a routine and consistent manner on the
face of the document.
``(3) Criteria for attorney general review.--In determining
whether section 1028B should apply to the records listed in
paragraph (2), the Attorney General shall consider the
following:
``(A) The cost or burden to the general public, businesses,
commercial enterprises, non-profit organizations, and to
Federal, State, and local governments of complying with
section 1028B.
``(B) The benefit to the general public, businesses,
commercial enterprises, non-profit organizations, and to
Federal, State, and local governments if the Attorney General
were to determine that section 1028B should apply to such
records.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter
47 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by section
3(a)(2)), is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 1028B the following:

``1028C. Display, sale, or purchase of public records containing Social
Security numbers.''.
(b) Study and Report on Social Security Numbers in Public
Records.--
(1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States
shall conduct a study and prepare a report on Social Security
numbers in public records. In developing the report, the
Comptroller General shall consult with the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts, State and local
governments that store, maintain, or disseminate public
records, and other stakeholders, including members of the
private sector who routinely use public records that contain
Social Security numbers.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to Congress a report on the study
conducted under paragraph (1). The report shall include a
detailed description of the activities and results of the
study and recommendations for such legislative action as the
Comptroller General considers appropriate. The report, at a
minimum, shall include--
(A) a review of the uses of Social Security numbers in non-
federal public records;
(B) a review of the manner in which public records are
stored (with separate reviews for both paper records and
electronic records);
(C) a review of the advantages or utility of public records
that contain Social Security numbers, including the utility
for law enforcement, and for the promotion of homeland
security;
(D) a review of the disadvantages or drawbacks of public
records that contain Social Security numbers, including
criminal activity, compromised personal privacy, or threats
to homeland security;
(E) the costs and benefits for State and local governments
of removing Social Security numbers from public records,
including

[[Page S126]]

a review of current technologies and procedures for removing
Social Security numbers from public records; and
(F) an assessment of the benefits and costs to businesses,
their customers, and the general public of prohibiting the
display of Social Security numbers on public records (with
separate assessments for both paper records and electronic
records).
(c) Effective Date.--The prohibition with respect to
electronic versions of new classes of public records under
section 1028C(b) of title 18, United States Code (as added by
subsection (a)(1)) shall not take effect until the date that
is 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), the
Attorney General may prescribe such rules and regulations as
the Attorney General deems necessary to carry out the
provisions of section 1028B(e)(5) of title 18, United States
Code (as added by section 3(a)(1)).
(b) Display, Sale, or Purchase Rulemaking With Respect to
Interactions Between Businesses, Governments, or Business and
Government.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Attorney General, in consultation
with the Commissioner of Social Security, the Chairman of the
Federal Trade Commission, and such other heads of Federal
agencies as the Attorney General determines appropriate,
shall conduct such rulemaking procedures in accordance with
subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code, as
are necessary to promulgate regulations to implement and
clarify the uses occurring as a result of an interaction
between businesses, governments, or business and government
(regardless of which entity initiates the interaction)
permitted under section 1028B(e)(5) of title 18, United
States Code (as added by section 3(a)(1)).
(2) Factors to be considered.--In promulgating the
regulations required under paragraph (1), the Attorney
General shall, at a minimum, consider the following:
(A) The benefit to a particular business, to customers of
the business, and to the general public of the display, sale,
or purchase of an individual's Social Security number.
(B) The costs that businesses, customers of businesses, and
the general public may incur as a result of prohibitions on
the display, sale, or purchase of Social Security numbers.
(C) The risk that a particular business practice will
promote the use of a Social Security number to commit fraud,
deception, or crime.
(D) The presence of adequate safeguards, procedures, and
technologies to prevent--
(i) misuse of Social Security numbers by employees within a
business; and
(ii) misappropriation of Social Security numbers by the
general public, while permitting internal business uses of
such numbers.
(E) The presence of procedures to prevent identity thieves,
stalkers, and other individuals with ill intent from posing
as legitimate businesses to obtain Social Security numbers.
(F) The impact of such uses on privacy.

SEC. 6. TREATMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS ON GOVERNMENT
DOCUMENTS.

(a) Prohibition of Use of Social Security Account Numbers
on Checks Issued for Payment by Governmental Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(x) No Federal, State, or local agency may display the
Social Security account number of any individual, or any
derivative of such number, on any check issued for any
payment by the Federal, State, or local agency.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to violations of section
205(c)(2)(C)(x) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
405(c)(2)(C)(x)), as added by paragraph (1), occurring after
the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this
Act.
(b) Prohibition of Inmate Access to Social Security Account
Numbers.--
(1) In general.--Section 205(c)(2)(C) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(C)) (as amended by
subsection (b)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(xi) No Federal, State, or local agency may employ, or
enter into a contract for the use or employment of, prisoners
in any capacity that would allow such prisoners access to the
Social Security account numbers of other individuals. For
purposes of this clause, the term `prisoner' means an
individual confined in a jail, prison, or other penal
institution or correctional facility pursuant to such
individual's conviction of a criminal offense.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to employment of prisoners, or entry
into contract with prisoners, after the date that is 1 year
after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 7. LIMITS ON PERSONAL DISCLOSURE OF A SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBER FOR CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS.

(a) In General.--Part A of title XI of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``SEC. 1150A. LIMITS ON PERSONAL DISCLOSURE OF A SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER FOR CONSUMER TRANSACTIONS.

``(a) In General.--A commercial entity may not require an
individual to provide the individual's Social Security number
when purchasing a commercial good or service or deny an
individual the good or service for refusing to provide that
number except--
``(1) for any purpose relating to--
``(A) obtaining a consumer report for any purpose permitted
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act;
``(B) a background check of the individual conducted by a
landlord, lessor, employer, voluntary service agency, or
other entity as determined by the Attorney General;
``(C) law enforcement; or
``(D) a Federal, State, or local law requirement; or
``(2) if the Social Security number is necessary to verify
the identity of the consumer to effect, administer, or
enforce the specific transaction requested or authorized by
the consumer, or to prevent fraud.
``(b) Application of Civil Money Penalties.--A violation of
this section shall be deemed to be a violation of section
1129(a)(3)(F).
``(c) Application of Criminal Penalties.--A violation of
this section shall be deemed to be a violation of section
208(a)(8).
``(d) Limitation on Class Actions.--No class action
alleging a violation of this section shall be maintained
under this section by an individual or any private party in
Federal or State court.
``(e) State Attorney General Enforcement.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Civil actions.--In any case in which the attorney
general of a State has reason to believe that an interest of
the residents of that State has been or is threatened or
adversely affected by the engagement of any person in a
practice that is prohibited under this section, the State, as
parens patriae, may bring a civil action on behalf of the
residents of the State in a district court of the United
States of appropriate jurisdiction to--
``(i) enjoin that practice;
``(ii) enforce compliance with such section;
``(iii) obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation
on behalf of residents of the State; or
``(iv) obtain such other relief as the court may consider
appropriate.
``(B) Notice.--
``(i) In general.--Before filing an action under
subparagraph (A), the attorney general of the State involved
shall provide to the Attorney General--

``(I) written notice of the action; and
``(II) a copy of the complaint for the action.

``(ii) Exemption.--

``(I) In general.--Clause (i) shall not apply with respect
to the filing of an action by an attorney general of a State
under this subsection, if the State attorney general
determines that it is not feasible to provide the notice
described in such subparagraph before the filing of the
action.
``(II) Notification.--With respect to an action described
in subclause (I), the attorney general of a State shall
provide notice and a copy of the complaint to the Attorney
General at the same time as the State attorney general files
the action.

``(2) Intervention.--
``(A) In general.--On receiving notice under paragraph
(1)(B), the Attorney General shall have the right to
intervene in the action that is the subject of the notice.
``(B) Effect of intervention.--If the Attorney General
intervenes in the action under paragraph (1), the Attorney
General shall have the right to be heard with respect to any
matter that arises in that action.
``(3) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under paragraph (1), nothing in this section shall be
construed to prevent an attorney general of a State from
exercising the powers conferred on such attorney general by
the laws of that State to--
``(A) conduct investigations;
``(B) administer oaths or affirmations; or
``(C) compel the attendance of witnesses or the production
of documentary and other evidence.
``(4) Actions by the attorney general of the united
states.--In any case in which an action is instituted by or
on behalf of the Attorney General for violation of a practice
that is prohibited under this section, no State may, during
the pendency of that action, institute an action under
paragraph (1) against any defendant named in the complaint in
that action for violation of that practice.
``(5) Venue; service of process.--
``(A) Venue.--Any action brought under paragraph (1) may be
brought in the district court of the United States that meets
applicable requirements relating to venue under section 1391
of title 28, United States Code.
``(B) Service of process.--In an action brought under
paragraph (1), process may be served in any district in which
the defendant--
``(i) is an inhabitant; or
``(ii) may be found.
``(f) Sunset.--This section shall not apply on or after the
date that is 6 years after the effective date of this
section.''.
(b) Evaluation and Report.--Not later than the date that is
6 years and 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Attorney General, in consultation with the chairman of
the Federal Trade Commission, shall issue a report evaluating
the effectiveness and efficiency of section 1150A of the
Social Security Act (as added by subsection (a)) and shall
make recommendations to

[[Page S127]]

Congress as to any legislative action determined to be
necessary or advisable with respect to such section,
including a recommendation regarding whether to reauthorize
such section.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply to requests to provide a Social Security number
occurring after the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act.

SEC. 8. EXTENSION OF CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES FOR MISUSE OF A
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER.

(a) Treatment of Withholding of Material Facts.--
(1) Civil penalties.--The first sentence of section
1129(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-
8(a)(1)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``who'' and inserting ``who--'';
(B) by striking ``makes'' and all that follows through
``shall be subject to'' and inserting the following:
``(A) makes, or causes to be made, a statement or
representation of a material fact, for use in determining any
initial or continuing right to or the amount of monthly
insurance benefits under title II or benefits or payments
under title VIII or XVI, that the person knows or should know
is false or misleading;
``(B) makes such a statement or representation for such use
with knowing disregard for the truth; or
``(C) omits from a statement or representation for such
use, or otherwise withholds disclosure of, a fact which the
individual knows or should know is material to the
determination of any initial or continuing right to or the
amount of monthly insurance benefits under title II or
benefits or payments under title VIII or XVI and the
individual knows, or should know, that the statement or
representation with such omission is false or misleading or
that the withholding of such disclosure is misleading, shall
be subject to'';
(C) by inserting ``or each receipt of such benefits while
withholding disclosure of such fact'' after ``each such
statement or representation'';
(D) by inserting ``or because of such withholding of
disclosure of a material fact'' after ``because of such
statement or representation''; and
(E) by inserting ``or such a withholding of disclosure''
after ``such a statement or representation''.
(2) Administrative procedure for imposing penalties.--The
first sentence of section 1129A(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1320a-8a(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``who'' and inserting ``who--''; and
(B) by striking ``makes'' and all that follows through
``shall be subject to'' and inserting the following:
``(1) makes, or causes to be made, a statement or
representation of a material fact, for use in determining any
initial or continuing right to or the amount of monthly
insurance benefits under title II or benefits or payments
under title VIII or XVI, that the person knows or should know
is false or misleading;
``(2) makes such a statement or representation for such use
with knowing disregard for the truth; or
``(3) omits from a statement or representation for such
use, or otherwise withholds disclosure of, a fact which the
individual knows or should know is material to the
determination of any initial or continuing right to or the
amount of monthly insurance benefits under title II or
benefits or payments under title VIII or XVI and the
individual knows, or should know, that the statement or
representation with such omission is false or misleading or
that the withholding of such disclosure is misleading, shall
be subject to''.
(b) Application of Civil Money Penalties to Elements of
Criminal Violations.--Section 1129(a) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8(a)), as amended by subsection (a)(1),
is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (4);
(2) by redesignating the last sentence of paragraph (1) as
paragraph (2) and inserting such paragraph after paragraph
(1); and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (2) (as so redesignated)
the following:
``(3) Any person (including an organization, agency, or
other entity) who--
``(A) uses a Social Security account number that such
person knows or should know has been assigned by the
Commissioner of Social Security (in an exercise of authority
under section 205(c)(2) to establish and maintain records) on
the basis of false information furnished to the Commissioner
by any person;
``(B) falsely represents a number to be the Social Security
account number assigned by the Commissioner of Social
Security to any individual, when such person knows or should
know that such number is not the Social Security account
number assigned by the Commissioner to such individual;
``(C) knowingly alters a Social Security card issued by the
Commissioner of Social Security, or possesses such a card
with intent to alter it;
``(D) knowingly displays, sells, or purchases a card that
is, or purports to be, a card issued by the Commissioner of
Social Security, or possesses such a card with intent to
display, purchase, or sell it;
``(E) counterfeits a Social Security card, or possesses a
counterfeit Social Security card with intent to display,
sell, or purchase it;
``(F) discloses, uses, compels the disclosure of, or
knowingly displays, sells, or purchases the Social Security
account number of any person in violation of the laws of the
United States;
``(G) with intent to deceive the Commissioner of Social
Security as to such person's true identity (or the true
identity of any other person) furnishes or causes to be
furnished false information to the Commissioner with respect
to any information required by the Commissioner in connection
with the establishment and maintenance of the records
provided for in section 205(c)(2);
``(H) offers, for a fee, to acquire for any individual, or
to assist in acquiring for any individual, an additional
Social Security account number or a number which purports to
be a Social Security account number; or
``(I) being an officer or employee of a Federal, State, or
local agency in possession of any individual's Social
Security account number, willfully acts or fails to act so as
to cause a violation by such agency of clause (vi)(II) or (x)
of section 205(c)(2)(C), shall be subject to, in addition to
any other penalties that may be prescribed by law, a civil
money penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation.
Such person shall also be subject to an assessment, in lieu
of damages sustained by the United States resulting from such
violation, of not more than twice the amount of any benefits
or payments paid as a result of such violation.''.
(c) Clarification of Treatment of Recovered Amounts.--
Section 1129(e)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1320a-8(e)(2)(B)) is amended by striking ``In the case of
amounts recovered arising out of a determination relating to
title VIII or XVI,'' and inserting ``In the case of any other
amounts recovered under this section,''.
(d) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1129(b)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320a-8(b)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``charging
fraud or false statements''.
(2) Section 1129(c)(1) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320a-8(c)(1)) is amended by striking ``and
representations'' and inserting ``, representations, or
actions''.
(3) Section 1129(e)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1320a-8(e)(1)(A)) is amended by striking ``statement
or representation referred to in subsection (a) was made''
and inserting ``violation occurred''.
(e) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to
violations of sections 1129 and 1129A of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1320-8 and 1320a-8a), as amended by this
section, committed after the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Violations by government agents in possession of social
security numbers.--Section 1129(a)(3)(I) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8(a)(3)(I)), as added by
subsection (b), shall apply with respect to violations of
that section occurring on or after the effective date
described in section 3(c).
(f) Repeal.--Section 201 of the Social Security Protection
Act of 2004 is repealed.

SEC. 9. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR THE MISUSE OF A SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER.

(a) Prohibition of Wrongful Use as Personal Identification
Number.--No person may obtain any individual's Social
Security number for purposes of locating or identifying an
individual with the intent to physically injure, harm, or use
the identity of the individual for any illegal purpose.
(b) Criminal Sanctions.--Section 208(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 408(a)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (8), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) except as provided in subsections (e) and (f) of
section 1028B of title 18, United States Code, knowingly and
willfully displays, sells, or purchases (as those terms are
defined in section 1028B(a) of title 18, United States Code)
any individual's Social Security account number without
having met the prerequisites for consent under section
1028B(d) of title 18, United States Code; or
``(10) obtains any individual's Social Security number for
the purpose of locating or identifying the individual with
the intent to injure or to harm that individual, or to use
the identity of that individual for an illegal purpose;''.

SEC. 10. CIVIL ACTIONS AND CIVIL PENALTIES.

(a) Civil Action in State Courts.--
(1) In general.--Any individual aggrieved by an act of any
person in violation of this Act or any amendments made by
this Act may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of
the court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that
State--
(A) an action to enjoin such violation;
(B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such
a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each
such violation, whichever is greater; or
(C) both such actions.
It shall be an affirmative defense in any action brought
under this paragraph that the defendant has established and
implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and
procedures to effectively prevent violations of the
regulations prescribed under this Act. If the court finds
that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the
regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may,
in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an
amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available
under subparagraph (B).

[[Page S128]]

(2) Statute of limitations.--An action may be commenced
under this subsection not later than the earlier of--
(A) 5 years after the date on which the alleged violation
occurred; or
(B) 3 years after the date on which the alleged violation
was or should have been reasonably discovered by the
aggrieved individual.
(3) Nonexclusive remedy.--The remedy provided under this
subsection shall be in addition to any other remedies
available to the individual.
(b) Civil Penalties.--
(1) In general.--Any person who the Attorney General
determines has violated any section of this Act or of any
amendments made by this Act shall be subject, in addition to
any other penalties that may be prescribed by law--
(A) to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each
such violation; and
(B) to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000, if the
violations have occurred with such frequency as to constitute
a general business practice.
(2) Determination of violations.--Any willful violation
committed contemporaneously with respect to the Social
Security numbers of 2 or more individuals by means of mail,
telecommunication, or otherwise, shall be treated as a
separate violation with respect to each such individual.
(3) Enforcement procedures.--The provisions of section
1128A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a), other
than subsections (a), (b), (f), (h), (i), (j), (m), and (n)
and the first sentence of subsection (c) of such section, and
the provisions of subsections (d) and (e) of section 205 of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 405) shall apply to a civil penalty
action under this subsection in the same manner as such
provisions apply to a penalty or proceeding under section
1128A(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(a)), except that,
for purposes of this paragraph, any reference in section
1128A of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a) to the Secretary shall
be deemed to be a reference to the Attorney General.

SEC. 11. FEDERAL INJUNCTIVE AUTHORITY.

In addition to any other enforcement authority conferred
under this Act or the amendments made by this Act, the
Federal Government shall have injunctive authority with
respect to any violation by a public entity of any provision
of this Act or of any amendments made by this Act.
______

By Mr. KERRY:
S. 142. A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act
to ensure that every uninsured child in America has health insurance
coverage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
MR. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Kids Come First
Act, legislation to ensure every child in America has access to health
care coverage. The Kids Come First Act is the first bill I am
introducing in the 111th Congress because I believe that insuring all
children must be at the top of the agenda this Congress.
Long-term health care reform is vital, but we must also do all that
we can now to make sure our children have access to health care. That
is why I have incorporated the Small Business Children's Health
Education Act as part of Kids First this Congress.
The 111th Congress faces many challenges, from the economic situation
at home to the continuing conflicts in the Middle East. But perhaps no
issue bears more directly on the lives of more Americans than health
care reform. Today, nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured,
including 11 million children. Health care has become a slow-motion
disaster that is ruining lives and bankrupting families all over the
country. We cannot stand by as the ranks of the uninsured rise and
American families find themselves in peril.
Children from low income households are three times as likely to be
uninsured and more than 60 percent of uninsured children have at least
one parent working full time. As we continue to face uncertain economic
times we must do more for the children of this country who lack health
coverage. Too many families are struggling with how to make ends meet.
This is the time to take one worry off their plate and make health
insurance available for all children.
The Kids Come First Act calls for a Federal-State partnership to
mandate health coverage to every child in America. The proposal makes
states an offer they can't refuse. The Federal Government will pay for
the most expensive part: enrolling all low-income children in Medicaid,
automatically. In return, the States will pay to expand coverage to
higher income children. Under this legislation, States will save more
than $6 billion a year, and every child will have access to healthcare.
I think it is unacceptable that in the greatest country in the world,
millions of children are denied access to the health care they need.
The Kids Come First Act expands health care coverage for children up to
the age of 21. Through expanding the programs that work, such as
Medicaid and SCHIP, we can cover every uninsured child.
Insuring children improves their health and helps families cover the
spiraling costs of medical care. Covering all kids will help reduce
avoidable hospitalizations by 22 percent and replace expensive critical
care with inexpensive preventative care. Also, when children get the
medical attention they need, they do better in school.
To pay for the expansion of health insurance for children, the Kids
Come First Act includes a provision that provides the Secretary of
Treasury with the authority to raise the highest income tax rate of 35
percent to a rate not higher than 39.6 percent in order to offset the
costs. Prior to the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001, the top marginal rate was 39.6 percent.
Less than one percent of taxpayers pay the top rate and for 2009, this
rate only affects individuals with income above $372,950.
In addition to expanding access to health insurance, we need to
improve enrollment of eligible children. In February 2007, the Urban
Institute reported that among those eligible for the State Children's
Health Insurance Program, children whose families are self-employed or
who work for small business concerns are far less likely to be
enrolled. Specifically, one out of every four eligible children with
parents working for a small business or are self-employed are not
currently enrolled. This compares with just 1 out of every 10 eligible
children whose parents work for a large firm.
We need to do a better job of informing and educating America's small
business owners and employees of the options that may be available for
covering uninsured children. To that effect, the Kids Come First Act
includes a provision that creates an intergovernmental task force,
consisting of the Administrator of the Small Business Administration,
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor and
the Secretary of Treasury, to conduct a campaign to enroll kids of
small business employees who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but
are not currently enrolled. To educate America's small businesses on
the availability of SCHIP and Medicaid, the task force will make use of
the Small Business Administration's business partners, including the
Service Corps of Retired Executives, the Small Business Development
Centers, Certified Development Companies, and Women's Business Centers,
and with chambers of commerce across the country.
Additionally, the Small Business Administration is directed to post
SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility criteria and enrollment information on
its website, and to report back to the Senate and House Committees on
Small Business regarding the status and successes of the task force's
efforts to enroll eligible kids.
Health care for our children is a top priority that we must address.
I believe it can be done in a fiscally responsible manner. We must
invest our resources in our future by improving health care for
children.
Since I first introduced the Kids Come First Act in the 109th
Congress, more than 500,000 people have shown their support for the
bill by becoming Citizen Cosponsors and another 20,000 Americans called
into our ``Give Voices to Our Values'' hotline to share their personal
stories.
It is clear that providing health care coverage for our uninsured
children is a priority for our nation's workers, businesses, and health
care community. They know, as I do, that further delay only results in
graver health problems for America's children. Their future, and ours,
depends on us doing better. I urge my colleagues to support and help
enact the Kids Come First Act during this Congress.
______

By Mr. KERRY:
S. 143. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for a college opportunity tax credit; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the College
Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009. This legislation creates a new tax
credit that

[[Page S129]]

will put the cost of higher education in reach for American families.
According to a recent College Board report tuition is rising at both
public and private institutions. On average, the tuition at a private
college this year is $25,143, up 5.9 percent from last year, and the
tuition at a public college $6,585, up 6.4 percent from last year.
Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are
keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around
Massachusetts, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not
be able to pay for their children's college. These parents know that
earning a college education will result in greater earnings for their
children and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the
greatest opportunities possible.
In 1997, the Congress implemented two new tax credits to make college
affordable--the HOPE and the Lifetime Learning credits. These tax
credits have put college in reach for families, but I believe we can do
more.
The HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits are not refundable, and
therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to
receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college
students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too
low. In order to receive the full benefit of the Lifetime Learning
credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This
is more than $3,000 the average annual public 4-year college tuition
more than three times the average annual tuition of a 2-year community
college. About 56 percent of college students attend schools with
tuition and fees under $9,000.
In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost
of 4 years of college. Currently the HOPE credit applies only to the
first 2 years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of
2009 helps students and parents afford all four years of college. It
also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of the
suggestions made by experts at a Finance Committee hearing held during
the 109th Congress. My legislation creates a new credit, the College
Opportunity Tax Credit, COTC, that replaces the existing HOPE credit
and Lifetime Learning credit and ultimately makes these benefits more
generous.
The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax
credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half-
time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first
$2,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit for the next
$4,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $4,000 each year per
student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time
students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for
the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the
first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next
$3,000 of expenses.
Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with
tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit
and the Lifetime Learning credit apply to the COTC. These amounts are
indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses. This
legislation is only for taxable years beginning in 2009 and 2010 in
order to make colleges affordable during these difficult financial
times. It will also give the Congress additional time to work on a
permanent solution to help with the rising cost of a college education.
The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009 simplifies the
existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will
enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that
many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax
credit for college education a reality this Congress.
______

By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
S. 144. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove
cell phones from listed property under section 280F; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I are
reintroducing the MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2009, Modernize Our
Bookkeeping in the Law for Employee's Cell Phone Act of 2009. Last
Congress, 60 Senators cosponsored this legislation which would update
the tax treatment of cell phones and mobile communication devices.
During the past 20 years, the use of cell phone and mobile
communication devices has skyrocketed. Cell phones are no longer viewed
as an executive perk or a luxury item. They no longer resemble
suitcases or are hardwired to the floor of an automobile. Cell phone
and mobile communication devices are now part of daily business
practices at all levels.
In 1989, Congress passed a law which added cell phones to the
definition of listed property under section 280F(d)(4) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986. Treating cell phones as listed property requires
substantial documentation in order for cell phones to benefit from
accelerated depreciation and not be treated as taxable income to the
employee. This documentation is required to substantiate that the cell
phone is used for business purposes more than 50 percent of the time.
Generally, listed property is property that inherently lends itself to
personal use, such as automobiles.
Back in 1989, cell phone technology was an expensive technology
worthy of detailed log sheets. At that time, it was difficult to
envision cell phones that could be placed in a pocket or handbag.
Congress was skeptical about the daily business use of cell phones.
Technological advances have revolutionized the cell phone and mobile
communication device industries. Twenty years ago, no one could have
imagined the role BlackBerries play in our day-to-day communications.
Cell phones and mobile communication devices are now widespread
throughout all types of businesses. Employers provide their employees
with these devices to enable them to remain connected 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. The cost of the devices has been reduced and most
providers offer unlimited airtime for one monthly rate.
Recently, the Internal Revenue Service reminded field examiners of
the substantiation rules for cell phones as listed property. The
current rule requires employers to maintain expensive and detailed
logs, and employers caught without cell phone logs could face tax
penalties.
The MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2009 updates the tax treatment of cell
phones and mobile communication devices by repealing the requirement
that employers maintain detailed logs. The tax code should keep pace
with technological advances. There is no longer a reason that cell
phones and mobile communication devices should be treated differently
than office phones or computers. Last, Congress 60 Senators cosponsored
this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
change.
______

By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold,
Mr. Schumer, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Rockefeller):
S. 146. A bill to amend the Federal antitrust laws to provide
expanded coverage and to eliminate exemptions from such laws that are
contrary to the public interest with respect to railroads; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
essential to restoring competition to the nation's crucial freight
railroad sector. Freight railroads are essential to shipping a myriad
of vital goods, everything from coal used to generate electricity to
grain used for basic foodstuffs. But for decades the freight railroads
have been insulated from the normal rules of competition followed by
almost all other parts of our economy by an outmoded and unwarranted
antitrust exemption. So today I am introducing along with my
colleagues, Senators Vitter, Leahy, Feingold, Schumer, Rockefeller,
Dorgan and Klobuchar, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009.
This legislation will eliminate the obsolete antitrust exemptions that
protect freight railroads from competition. This legislation is
identical to the legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary
Committee in the last Congress without dissent.
Our legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that
protect

[[Page S130]]

freight railroads from competition and result in higher prices to
millions of consumers every day. Consolidation in the railroad industry
in recent years has resulted in only four Class I railroads providing
over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail transportation. The lack
of competition was documented in an October 2006 Government
Accountability Office report. That report found that shippers in many
geographic areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of
competition in these markets.'' These unjustified cost increases cause
consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay
for the high cost of transporting coal, result in higher prices for
goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw
materials, and reduce earnings for American farmers who ship their
products by rail and raise food prices paid by consumers.
The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of
``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the
past several years, these captive shippers have faced spiking rail
rates. They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price
gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which
they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and
ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections
of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead,
the railroads are protected by a series of outmoded exemptions from the
normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide.
In August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District of
Columbia sent a letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of
competition and asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed.
These unwarranted antitrust exemptions have put the American consumer
at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition
abound. A coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected
organizations--Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La
Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my state are
feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a
93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power
Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The
reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all
declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch.
Similar stories exist across the country. We held a hearing at the
Antitrust Subcommittee in September 2007 which detailed numerous
instances of anti-competitive conduct by the dominant freight railroads
and at which railroad shippers testified as to the need to repeal the
outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemptions which left them without
remedies. Dozens of organizations, unions and trade groups--including
the American Public Power Association, the American Chemistry Council,
American Corn Growers Associations and many more affected by
monopolistic railroad conduct endorsed the Railroad Antitrust
Enforcement Act in the last Congress.
The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad
industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers.
Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are
reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that
engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law.
Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board
are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination
of anticompetitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will
eliminate these exemptions.
No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent
decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980--
deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the
Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions
remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the
rules of fair competition. And there is no reason to treat railroads
any differently from dozens of other regulated industries in our
economy that are fully subject to antitrust law--whether the
telecommunications sector regulated by the FCC, or the aviation
industry regulation by the Department of Transportation, to name just
two examples.
Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the
purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal government, state
attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin
anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of
these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice
Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It
will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad
common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad
collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other
private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive
relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that
leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. This legislation will force
railroads to play by the rules of free competition like all other
businesses.
In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust
exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of
the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools
to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads.
Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to
deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.
It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's
freight railroads. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in
industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust
laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end
monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service high.
The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads
to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for its coal,
a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or
ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the
antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in
this industry today. I urge my colleagues support the Railroad
Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009.
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. 146

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 ``Railroad Antitrust
Enforcement Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST RAILROAD COMMON CARRIERS.

The proviso in section 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 26)
ending with ``Code.'' is amended to read as follows:
``Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed
to entitle any person, firm, corporation, or association,
except the United States, to bring suit for injunctive relief
against any common carrier that is not a railroad subject to
the jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board under
subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code.''.

SEC. 3. MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF RAILROADS.

The sixth undesignated paragraph of section 7 of the
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 18) is amended to read as follows:
``Nothing contained in this section shall apply to
transactions duly consummated pursuant to authority given by
the Secretary of Transportation, Federal Power Commission,
Surface Transportation Board (except for transactions
described in section 11321 of that title), the Securities and
Exchange Commission in the exercise of its jurisdiction under
section 10 (of the Public Utility Holding Company Act of
1935), the United States Maritime Commission, or the
Secretary of Agriculture under any statutory provision
vesting such power in the Commission, Board, or Secretary.''.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION.

The Clayton Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
``Sec. 29. In any civil action against a common carrier
railroad under section 4, 4C, 15, or 16 of this Act, the
district court shall not be required to defer to the primary
jurisdiction of the Surface Transportation Board.''.

SEC. 5. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT.

(a) Clayton Act.--Section 11(a) of the Clayton Act (15
U.S.C. 21(a)) is amended by striking ``subject to
jurisdiction'' and all that follows through the first
semicolon and inserting ``subject to jurisdiction under
subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code (except for
agreements described in section 10706 of that title and
transactions described in section 11321 of that title);''.

[[Page S131]]

(b) FTC Act.--Section 5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(2)) is amended by striking
``common carriers subject'' and inserting ``common carriers,
except for railroads, subject''.

SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF TREBLE DAMAGES TO RAIL COMMON CARRIERS.

Section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15) is amended by--
(1) redesignating subsections (b) and (c) as subsections
(c) and (d), respectively; and
(2) inserting after subsection (a) the following:
``(b) Subsection (a) shall apply to a common carrier by
railroad subject to the jurisdiction of the Surface
Transportation Board under subtitle IV of title 49, United
States Code, without regard to whether such railroads have
filed rates or whether a complaint challenging a rate has
been filed.''.

SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTIONS IN TITLE 49.

(a) In General.--Section 10706 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``, and the Sherman
Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.),'' and all that follows through
``or carrying out the agreement'' in the third sentence;
(B) in paragraph (4)--
(i) by striking the second sentence; and
(ii) by striking ``However, the'' in the third sentence and
inserting ``The''; and
(C) in paragraph (5)(A), by striking ``, and the antitrust
laws set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection do not
apply to parties and other persons with respect to making or
carrying out the agreement''; and
(2) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a
proposed agreement described in subsection (a) from the
application of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the
Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of
the Wilson Tariff Act (15 U.S.C. 8 and 9), or the Act of June
19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13, 13a, 13b, 21a).
``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing
any such proposed agreement for the purpose of any provision
of law described in paragraph (1), the Board shall take into
account, among any other considerations, the impact of the
proposed agreement on shippers, on consumers, and on affected
communities.''.
(b) Combinations.--Section 11321 of title 49, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``The authority'' in the first sentence and
inserting ``Except as provided in sections 4 (15 U.S.C. 15),
4C (15 U.S.C. 15c), section 15 (15 U.S.C. 25), and section 16
(15 U.S.C. 26) of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 21(a)), the
authority''; and
(B) by striking ``is exempt from the antitrust laws and
from all other law,'' in the third sentence and inserting
``is exempt from all other law (except the antitrust laws
referred to in subsection (c)),''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Application of Antitrust Laws.--
``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section exempts a
transaction described in subsection (a) from the application
of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Clayton Act (15
U.S.C. 12, 14 et seq.), the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 41 et seq.), section 73 or 74 of the Wilson Tariff Act
(15 U.S.C. 8-9), or the Act of June 19, 1936 (15 U.S.C. 13,
13a, 13b, 21a). The preceding sentence shall not apply to any
transaction relating to the pooling of railroad cars approved
by the Surface Transportation Board or its predecessor agency
pursuant to section 11322 of title 49, United States Code.
``(2) Antitrust analysis to consider impact.--In reviewing
any such transaction for the purpose of any provision of law
described in paragraph (1), the Board shall take into
account, among any other considerations, the impact of the
transaction on shippers and on affected communities.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The heading for section 10706 of title 49, United
States Code, is amended to read as follows: ``Rate
agreements''.
(2) The item relating to such section in the chapter
analysis at the beginning of chapter 107 of such title is
amended to read as follows:

``10706. Rate agreements.''.

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

(a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of subsection
(b), this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of
this Act.
(b) Conditions.--
(1) Previous conduct.--A civil action under section 4, 15,
or 16 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 15, 25, 26) or complaint
under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15
U.S.C. 45) may not be filed with respect to any conduct or
activity that occurred prior to the date of enactment of this
Act that was previously exempted from the antitrust laws as
defined in section 1 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. 12) by
orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission or the Surface
Transportation Board issued pursuant to law.
(2) Grace period.--A civil action or complaint described in
paragraph (1) may not be filed earlier than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act with respect to any
previously exempted conduct or activity or previously
exempted agreement that is continued subsequent to the date
of enactment of this Act.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to thank the senior Senator
from Wisconsin for his hard work to address antitrust issues in the
rail industry along with other industries as Chairman of the Antitrust,
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Subcommittee of the Judiciary
Committee. I have been pleased to support his efforts to bring
antitrust scrutiny to the large freight railroads since he first
introduced a version of this legislation in 2006. As Senator Kohl well
knows, this is a vitally important issue for rail customers and
ultimately consumers both in Wisconsin and across the country.
Over the past several years, I have heard more and more comments and
concerns from freight rail customers at my town hall meetings in
Wisconsin and my meetings in Washington. The concerns have come from
constituents who rely on freight railroads to transport their goods or
receive raw materials. The comments I have heard have been diverse by
industry, ranging from forestry, energy, farming, and petrochemical
companies to various manufacturers, and by size, from family owned
enterprises to large corporations. The problems they have described do
not seem to be isolated incidents, but instead suggest a systematic
continuing problem.
There are several general concerns that seem to apply no matter which
class of railroad is discussed. While outright refusals of transport
may be rare, several of my constituents have found it difficult to get
timely estimates of costs for carriage for their cargo. This seems to
especially be a problem for short distances or small loads, or if the
cargo is only on the originating railroads' tracks for a short
distance. Many have said that they feel like second-class citizens,
denied the better service and dedicated trains that the long-haul
receive.
I have also heard about problems with changes to transportation
schedules, and problems with rail car delivery and ancillary services
such as scales. Many rail customers seem to feel that as railroads
continued to merge over the past two decades, service, especially for
small customers, has declined dramatically. Again, this seems to
especially affect small railroad customers who are dependant on rail
transport, but face difficulty in receiving cars to fill, moving filled
cars in a timely manner or weighing their loads.
Of course cost is also an issue, but it is not just the cost of
transportation. Some rail customers feel that the Surface
Transportation Board, STB, complaint process is too costly, slow and
tilted in favor of the railroads over the customers. They contend that
these hurdles to exposing anticompetitive practices have the effect of
perpetuating the unfair treatment and excessive rates they experience.
Senator Kohl's proposal would remove the current railroad antitrust
exemptions so that railroads would be covered like other segments of
industry. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission
would then have the authority to review mergers and block anti-
competitive mergers. The legislation would also expand the ability of
State Attorneys General and private parties to halt anti-competitive
behavior and seek up to treble damages for any such violations.
I believe this is a very reasonable and measured proposal as
evidenced by the bill being passed out of the Judiciary Committee in
the previous Congress by voice vote. I look forward to supporting
Senator Kohl's efforts to move the legislation through committee again
and push for its passage into law during the current Congress.
While I hope that providing the Department of Justice the authority
to review possible antitrust violations as proposed in the current bill
will improve the situation for many shippers, it may have to go hand-
in-hand with reforms at the STB as were contemplated in the previous
Congress by Senator Rockefeller's Railroad Competition and Service
Improvements Act of 2007.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Wyden, and
Mr. Whitehouse):
S. 147. A bill to require the closure of the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to limit the use of certain interrogation
techniques, to prohibit interrogation by contractors, to require
notification of the International

[[Page S132]]

Committee of the Red Cross of detainees, and for other purposes; to the
Select Committee on Intelligence.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Today, I am introducing the Lawful Interrogation and
Detention Act of 2009--legislation intended to reverse the harmful,
dangerous, un-American, and illegal detention and interrogation
practices of the past seven years.
As I will describe in detail below, the four provisions in this bill
would: Close the Guantanamo Bay detention centers, outlaw CIA's
coercive interrogation program, prevent the use of contractor
interrogations, and end secret detention at CIA black sites.
These practices have brought shame to our nation, have harmed our
ability to fight the war on terror, and, I believe, violate U.S. law
and international treaty obligations.
As was made crystal clear on last November 4, we need change and we
need a new direction. When it comes to the war on terrorism, we need to
disavow ``the Dark Side'' so embraced by the Bush administration.
Instead, we need to follow our approach honed through the Cold War:
standing by the strength of our values and ideals, building strong
partnerships with allies, and mixing soft power with the force of our
military might.
This legislation would put us back on the right track and I believe
it to be fully consistent with the policies and intentions of
President-elect Obama.
It is time to end the failed experiment at Guantanamo Bay. It is time
to repudiate torture and secret disappearances. It is time to end the
outsourcing of coercive interrogations to outside mercenaries. It is
time to return to the norms and values that have driven the United
States to greatness since the days of George Washington, but have been
tarnished in the past 7 years.
First, this legislation requires the President to close the detention
facilities at Guantanamo Bay within 12 months.
The need to close Guantanamo is clear. Along with the abuses at Abu
Ghraib, Guantanamo has been decried as American hypocrisy and cruelty
throughout the world. They have given aid in recruiting to our enemies,
and have been named by Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora as the leading
causes of death to U.S. troops in Iraq.
Numerous reports, most recently one completed and approved
unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee, have documented the
abusive methods used at Guantanamo.
Beyond the physical, psychological, and emotional abuse witnessed at
Guantanamo, it has been the source of great legal embarrassment. The
Supreme Court has struck down the Bush administration's legal reasoning
four separate times: in the Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, and Boumediene
decisions.
It was explicitly created to be a separate and lesser system of
justice, to hold people captured on or near the battlefield in
Afghanistan indefinitely. It has produced exactly three convictions,
including Australian David Hicks who agreed to a plea bargain to get
off the island, and Osama bin Ladin's driver, Salim Hamdan, who has
already served almost all of his sentence through time already spent at
Guantanamo.
The hard part about closing Guantanamo is not deciding to do it--it
is figuring out what to do with the remaining detainees.
Under the Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, the approximately
250 individuals now being held there would be handled in one of five
ways:
They could be charged with a crime and tried in the United States in
the Federal civilian or military justice systems. These systems have
handled terrorists and other dangerous individuals before, and are
capable of dealing with classified evidence and other unusual factors.
Individuals could be transferred to an international tribunal to hold
hearings, if such a tribunal is created; detainees could be returned to
their native countries, or if that is not possible, they could be
transferred to a third country.
To date, more than 500 men have been sent from Guantanamo to the
custody other countries. Recently, Portugal and other nations have
suggested they would be open to taking some of the remaining detainees
as a way to help close Guantanamo.
If there are detainees who can't be charged with crimes or
transferred to the custody of another country, there is a fourth
option. If the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National
Intelligence agree that an individual poses no security threat to the
United States, the U.S. Government may release him.
This may work, for example, for the Chinese Uighurs remaining at
Guantanamo. In fact, a Federal court has already ordered that this
group be released into the country, though that ruling has been stayed
upon appeal.
Finally, for detainees who cannot be addressed in any of the first
four options, the Executive Branch could hold them under the existing
authorities provided by the law of armed conflict.
I believe that these options provide sufficient flexibility to handle
the 250 or so people now being held at Guantanamo. If the incoming
Obama Administration decides that other alternatives are needed, it
should come to Congress, explain the specifics of the problem, and we
will work toward a joint legislative solution.
The other three provisions in this legislation end parts of the CIA's
secret detention and interrogation program.
Some of the details of the program are already publicly known, like
the use of waterboarding on three individuals. Other aspects remain
secret, such as the other authorized interrogation techniques and how
they were used.
There have been public allegations of multiple deaths of detainees in
CIA custody. There was one conviction of a CIA contractor in the death
of a detainee in Afghanistan, but other details remain classified.
But it is well known that on August 1, 2002, the Justice Department
approved coercive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding,
for the CIA's use. This despite the fact that the Justice Department
has prosecuted the use of waterboarding and the State Department has
decried it overseas.
The Administration used warped logic and faulty reasoning to say
waterboarding technique was not torture. It is.
Other interrogation techniques used by the CIA have not been
acknowledged but are still authorized for use. This has to end.
But we will never turn this sad page in our nation's history until
all coercive techniques are banned, and are replaced with a single,
clear, uniform standard across the United States Government.
That standard established by this legislation is the interrogation
protocols set out in the Army Field Manual. The 19 specified techniques
work for the military and operate under the same framework as the time-
honored approach of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If the CIA
would abide by its terms, it would work for the CIA as well.
These techniques were at the heart of former FBI Special Agent Jack
Cloonan's successful interrogation of those responsible for the 1993
World Trade Center bombing. They were also the tools used by Special
Agent George Piro to get Saddam Hussein to provide the evidence that
resulted in his death sentence.
We have powerful expert testimony that the Army Field Manual
techniques work against terrorist suspects. The Manual's use across the
government is supported by scores of retired generals and admirals, by
General David Petraeus, and by former secretaries of state and national
security advisors in both parties.
Majorities in both houses of Congress passed this provision last year
as part of the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill,
sending a clear message that we do not support coercive interrogations.
Regrettably, the President's veto stopped it from becoming law.
The new President agrees that we need to end coercive interrogations
and to comply strictly to the terms of the Convention Against Torture
and the Geneva Conventions. I look forward to working with him to end
this sad story in the Nation's history.
The third part of this legislation is a ban on contractor
interrogators at the CIA. As General Hayden has testified, the CIA
hires and keeps on contract people who are not intelligence
professionals and whose sole job is to ``break'' detainees and get them
to talk.

[[Page S133]]

I firmly believe that outsourcing interrogations, whether coercive or
more appropriate ones, to private companies is a way to diminish
accountability and to avoid getting the Agency's hands dirty. I also
believe that the use of contractors leads to more brutal interrogations
than if they were done by government employees.
There are surely areas where paying contractors makes practical and
financial sense. Interrogations--a form of collecting intelligence--is
not one of them. This has become a major diplomatic issue, a key
obstacle in prosecuting people like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaykh
Mohammed, and a national black eye. It is not the sort of thing to be
done at arm's length.
The fourth and final provision in this legislation requires that the
CIA and other intelligence agencies provide notification to the
International Committee of the Red Cross--the ICRC--of their detainees.
Following notification, the CIA will be required to provide ICRC
officials with access to their detainees in the same way that the
military does.
Access by the ICRC is a hallmark of international law and is required
by the Geneva Conventions. Access to a third party, and the ICRC in
particular, was seen by the U.S. in 1947 as a guarantee that American
men and women would be protected if they were ever captured overseas.
But ICRC access has been denied at CIA black sites, just like it had
been in some military-run facilities in the war on terror. This has, in
part, opened the door to the abuses in detainee treatment. Independent
access prevents abuses like we witnessed at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo
Bay. It is time that the same protection is in place for the CIA as has
been demanded of the Department of Defense.
We remain a nation at war, and credible, actionable intelligence
remains a cornerstone of our war effort. But this is a war that will be
won by fighting smarter, not by sinking to the depths of our enemies.
Our Nation has paid an enormous price because of these
interrogations.
They cast shadow and doubt over our ideals and our system of justice.
Our enemies have used our practices to recruit more extremists.
Our key global partnerships, crucial to winning the war on terror,
have been strained.
It will take time to resume our place as the world's beacon of
liberty and justice. This bill will put us on that path and start the
process. I urge its passage.
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. 147

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 ``Lawful Interrogation and
Detention Act''.

SEC. 2. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DEFINED.

In this Act, the term ``intelligence community'' has the
meaning given that term in section 3(4) of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).

SEC. 3. CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITY AT GUANTANAMO BAY.

(a) Requirement to Close.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall close
the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba operated by
the Secretary of Defense and remove all detainees from such
facility.
(b) Detainees.--Prior to the date that the President closes
the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as required
by subsection (a), each individual detained at such facility
shall be treated exclusively through one of the following:
(1) The individual shall be charged with a violation of
United States or international law and transferred to a
military or Federal civilian detention facility in the United
States for further legal proceedings, provided that such a
Federal civilian facility or military facility has received
the highest security rating available for such a facility.
(2) The individual shall be transferred to an international
tribunal operating under the authority of the United Nations
that has jurisdiction to hold a trial of such individual.
(3) The individual shall be transferred to the custody of
the government of the individual's country of citizenship or
a different country, provided that such transfer is
consistent with--
(A) the Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at
New York, December 10, 1984;
(B) all relevant United States law; and
(C) any other international obligation of the United
States.
(4) If the Secretary of Defense and Director of National
Intelligence determine, jointly, that the individual poses no
security threat to the United States and actions cannot be
taken under paragraph (1) or (3), the individual shall be
released from further detention.
(5) The individual shall be held in accordance with the law
of armed conflict.
(c) Reporting Requirements.--
(1) Requirement for report.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall
submit to Congress a report that describes the President's
plan to implement this section.
(2) Requirement to update.--The President shall keep
Congress fully and currently informed of the steps taken to
implement this section.
(d) Construction.--
(1) Immigration status.--The transfer of an individual
under subsection (b) shall not be considered an entry into
the United States for purposes of immigration status.
(2) No additional detention authority.--Nothing in this
section may be construed as altering or adding to existing
authorities for, or restrictions on, the detention,
treatment, or transfer of individuals in United States
custody.

SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.

No individual in the custody or under the effective control
of personnel of an element of the intelligence community or a
contractor or subcontractor of an element of the intelligence
community, regardless of nationality or physical location of
such individual or personnel, shall be subject to any
treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the
United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence
Collector Operations.

SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON INTERROGATIONS BY CONTRACTORS.

The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency shall not
allow a contractor or subcontractor to the Central
Intelligence Agency to carry out an interrogation of an
individual. Any interrogation carried out on behalf of the
Central Intelligence Agency shall be conducted by an employee
of such Agency.

SEC. 6. NOTIFICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE
RED CROSS.

(a) Requirement.--The head of an element of the
intelligence community or a contractor or subcontractor of
such element who detains or has custody or effective control
of an individual shall notify the International Committee of
the Red Cross of the detention of the individual and provide
access to such individual in a manner consistent with the
practices of the Armed Forces.
(b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed--
(1) to create or otherwise imply the authority to detain;
or
(2) to limit or otherwise affect any other rights or
obligations which may arise under the Geneva Conventions,
other international agreements, or other laws, or to state
all of the situations under which notification to and access
for the International Committee of the Red Cross is required
or allowed.
______

By Mr. KOHL:
S. 148. A bill to restore the rule that agreements between
manufacturers and retailers, distributors, or wholesalers to set the
minimum price below which the manufacturer's product or service cannot
be sold violates the Sherman Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from
electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, the Discount Pricing
Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that
it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum
price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a
practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price
fixing''. In June 2007, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow
5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case incorrectly interpreted
the Sherman Act to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which
has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill--identical to
legislation I introduced in 2007 (S. 2261 in the 110th Congress)--will
correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se
ban on vertical price fixing. Our bill has been endorsed by 34 state
attorneys general as well as numerous antitrust experts, including
former FTC Chairman Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour.
The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing
manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very
existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices
for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price
fixing permitted discounters to sell goods

[[Page S134]]

at the most competitive price. Many credit this rule with the rise of
today's low price, discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best
Buy, Walmart, and the Internet sites Amazon and EBay, which offer
consumers a wide array of highly desired products at discount prices.
From my own personal experience in business I know of the dangers of
permitting vertical price fixing. My family started the Kohl's
department stores in 1962, and I worked there for many years before we
sold the stores in the 1980s. On several occasions, we lost lines of
merchandise because we tried to sell at prices lower than what the
manufacturer and our rival retailers wanted. For example, when we
started Kohl's and were just a small competitor to the established
retail giants, we had serious difficulties obtaining the leading brand
name jeans. The traditional department stores demanded that the
manufacturer not sell to us unless we would agree to maintain a certain
minimum price. Because they didn't want to lose the business of their
biggest customers, that jeans manufacturer acquiesced in the demands of
the department stores--at least until our lawyers told them that they
were violating the rule against vertical price fixing.
So I know firsthand the dangers to competition and discounting of
permitting the practice of vertical price fixing. But we don't need to
rely on my own experience. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress
passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to
enact so-called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing.
Studies Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated
that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the States that
allowed vertical price fixing than the States that had not passed such
``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $ 2.1 billion per year
at that time.
Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the
likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is
even grater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case,
Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers
engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today
would be $ 300 billion, translating into retail bills that would
average $ 750 to $ 1,000 higher for the average family of four every
year.
And the experience of the last year and a half since the Leegin
decision is beginning to confirm our fears regarding the dangers from
permitting vertical price fixing. In December 2008, for example, Sony
announced that it would implement a no-discount rule to retailer's
selling some of its most in-demand products, including some models of
high-end flat screen TVs and digital cameras. On December 4, 2008, the
Wall Street Journal reported that a new business has materialized for
companies that scour the Internet in search of retailers selling
products at a bargain. When such bargain sellers are detected, the
manufacturer is alerted so that they can demand the seller end the
discounting of its product. The chilling effect on discounting of such
tactics is clear--in one example, the Wall Street Journal reported that
Circuit City was forced to raise its retail price for an LG flat screen
TV by $ 170 to nearly $ 1,600 after its discount price was discovered
on the Internet.
Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers
such as Walmart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and
have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose
retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly
worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical
price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new
discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount
at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition,
we will imperil an essential element of retail competition so
beneficial to consumers.
In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme
Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated
under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of
reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an
``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party
challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive
effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of
the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish
the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses
involved possess market power ``is a further, significant
consideration'' under the rule of reason.
In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price
fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden
for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about
vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores with
limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust
litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts
necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under
the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones
Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a
virtual euphemism for per se legality.''
In July 2007, our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted an extensive
hearing into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing
the ban on vertical price fixing. Both former FTC Chairman Robert
Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed
restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms
discount clothing stores, did so as well, citing the likely dangers to
the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of
the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it
would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging
vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company
``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position
in the marketplace to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of
this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity
of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices
for consumers.
The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this
goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add
one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision
addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any
agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price
below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No
balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a
manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably
violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to
antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by
simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices
and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day.
In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an
explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually
every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big
box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the
Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that
today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained
by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the
abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to
support this bill.
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. 148

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 ``Discount Pricing Consumer
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) From 1911 in the Dr. Miles decision until June 2007 in
the Leegin decision, the Supreme Court had ruled that the
Sherman Act forbid in all circumstances the practice of a
manufacturer setting a minimum price below which any
retailer, wholesaler or distributor could not sell the
manufacturer's product (the practice of ``resale price
maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing'').

[[Page S135]]

(2) The rule of per se illegality forbidding resale price
maintenance promoted price competition and the practice of
discounting all to the substantial benefit of consumers and
the health of the economy.
(3) Many economic studies showed that the rule against
resale price maintenance led to lower prices and promoted
consumer welfare.
(4) Abandoning the rule against resale price maintenance
will likely lead to higher prices paid by consumers and
substantially harms the ability of discount retail stores to
compete. For 40 years prior to 1975, Federal law permitted
states to enact so-called ``fair trade'' laws allowing
vertical price fixing. Studies conducted by the Department of
Justice in the late 1960s indicated that retail prices were
between 18 and 27 percent higher in states that allowed
vertical price fixing than those that did not. Likewise, a
1983 study by the Bureau of Economics of the Federal Trade
Commission found that, in most cases, resale price
maintenance increased the prices of products sold.
(5) The 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court majority in
Leegin incorrectly interpreted the Sherman Act and improperly
disregarded 96 years of antitrust law precedent in
overturning the per se rule against resale price maintenance.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to correct the Supreme Court's mistaken interpretation
of the Sherman Act in the Leegin decision; and
(2) to restore the rule that agreements between
manufacturers and retailers, distributors or wholesalers to
set the minimum price below which the manufacturer's product
or service cannot be sold violates the Sherman Act.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON VERTICAL PRICE FIXING.

(a) Amendment to the Sherman Act.--Section 1 of the Sherman
Act (15 U.S.C. 1) is amended by adding after the first
sentence the following: ``Any contract, combination,
conspiracy or agreement setting a minimum price below which a
product or service cannot be sold by a retailer, wholesaler,
or distributor shall violate this Act.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______

By Mr. KOHL:
S. 149. A bill to change the date for regularly scheduled Federal
elections and establish polling place hours; to the Committee on Rules
and Administration.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Weekend Voting
Act. This legislation will change the day for Congressional and
Presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first
weekend in November. This legislation is nearly identical to
legislation that I first proposed in 1997.
We have recently completed the most serious business of our
democracy--a Presidential election in which millions and millions of
citizens demonstrated an enormous amount of enthusiasm. We all want
every eligible voter to participate and cast a vote. But recent
experience has shown us that unneeded obstacles are placed preventing
citizens from exercising their franchise. The debacle of defective
ballots and voting methods in Florida in the 2000 election galvanized
Congress into passing major election reform legislation. The Help
America Vote Act, which was enacted into law in 2002, was an important
step forward in establishing minimum standards for States in the
administration of Federal elections and in providing funds to replace
outdated voting systems and improve election administration. However,
there is much that still needs to be done.
With more and more voters seeking to cast their ballots on Election
Day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it
easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to
voting on just one election day. Twenty-eight States, including my own
State of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee
ballot. These states constitute nearly half of the voting age citizens
of the United States. Thirty-one States permit in-person early voting
at election offices or at other satellite locations. The State of
Oregon now conducts statewide elections completely by mail. These
innovations are critical if we are to conduct fair elections for it has
become unreasonable to expect that a Nation of 300 million people can
line up at the same time and cast their ballots at the same time. If we
continue to try to do so, we will encounter even more reports of broken
machines and long lines in the rain and registration errors that create
barriers to voting.
That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our Federal
election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November
to the first weekend in November. Holding our Federal elections on a
weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots
and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to
undermine our elections.
Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period
of time from 10 a.m. Saturday eastern time to 6 p.m. Sunday eastern
time. Polls in all time zones would in the 48 contiguous states also
open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to
close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be
inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls would be open on both
Saturday and Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious
observances.
Keeping polls open the same hours across the continental United
States, also addresses the challenge of keeping results on one side of
the country, or even a state, from influencing voting in places where
polls are still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the
pool of buildings available for polling stations and people available
to work at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers.
Most important, weekend voting has the potential to increase voter
turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls
without creating a national holiday. There is already evidence that
holding elections on a non-working day can increase voter turnout. In
one survey of 44 democracies, 29 held elections on holidays or weekends
and in all these cases voter turnout surpassed our country's voter
participation rates.
In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform
recommended that we move our Federal election day to a national
holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As expected, the proposal was not
well received among veterans and I do not endorse such a move, but I
share the Commission's goal of moving election day to a non-working
day.
Since the mid 19th century, election day has been on the first
Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was
convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land
owning voters were often coming to town anyway.
Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done
for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to
make voting easier for the regular family. We have outgrown our Tuesday
voting day tradition, a tradition better left behind to a bygone horse
and buggy era. In today's America, 60 percent of all households have
two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only
12 hours on a Tuesday, generally from 7 a.m. to 7 or 8 p.m., voters
often have only one or two hours to vote. As we've seen in recent
elections, long lines in many polling places have kept some voters
waiting much longer than one or two hours. If voters have children, and
are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute,
there is just not enough time in a workday to vote.
With long lines and chaotic polling places becoming the unacceptable
norm in many communities, we have an obligation to reform how our
Nation votes. If we are to grant all Americans an equal opportunity to
participate in the electoral process, and to elect our representatives
in this great democracy, then we must be willing to reexamine all
aspects of voting in America. Changing our election day to a weekend
may seem like a change of great magnitude. Given the stakes--the
integrity of future elections and full participation by as many
Americans as possible--I hope my colleagues will recognize it as a
commonsense proposal whose time has come.
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. 149

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 ``Weekend Voting Act''.

SEC. 2. CHANGE IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION DAY TO SATURDAY AND
SUNDAY.

Section 25 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 7) is amended
to read as follows:

[[Page S136]]

``Sec. 25. The first Saturday and Sunday after the first
Friday in November, in every even numbered year, are
established as the days for the election, in each of the
States and Territories of the United States, of
Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on
the 3d day of January thereafter.''.

SEC. 3. CHANGE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DAY TO SATURDAY AND
SUNDAY.

Section 1 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``Tuesday next after the first Monday'' and
inserting ``first Saturday and Sunday after the first
Friday''.

SEC. 4. POLLING PLACE HOURS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Presidential general election.--Chapter 1 of title 3,
United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating section 1 as section 1A; and
(B) by inserting before section 1A the following:

``Sec. 1. Polling place hours

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Continental united states.--The term `continental
United States' means a State (other than Alaska and Hawaii)
and the District of Columbia.
``(2) Presidential general election.--The term
`Presidential general election' means the election for
electors of President and Vice President.
``(b) Polling Place Hours.--
``(1) Polling places in the continental united states.--
Each polling place in the continental United States shall be
open, with respect to a Presidential general election,
beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern standard time and
ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern standard time.
``(2) Polling places outside the continental united
states.--Each polling place not located in the continental
United States shall be open, with respect to a Presidential
general election, beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. local
time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. local time.
``(3) Early closing.--A polling place may close between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m.
local time on Sunday as provided by the law of the State in
which the polling place is located.''.
(2) Congressional general election.--Section 25 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 7) is
amended--
(A) by redesignating section 25 as section 25A; and
(B) by inserting before section 25A the following:

``SEC. 25. POLLING PLACE HOURS.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Continental united states.--The term `continental
United States' means a State (other than Alaska and Hawaii)
and the District of Columbia.
``(2) Congressional general election.--The term
`congressional general election' means the general election
for the office of Senator or Representative in, or Delegate
or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.
``(b) Polling Place Hours.--
``(1) Polling places inside the continental united
states.--Each polling place in the continental United States
shall be open, with respect to a congressional general
election, beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. eastern
standard time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern
standard time.
``(2) Polling places outside the continental united
states.--Each polling place not located in the continental
United States shall be open, with respect to a congressional
general election, beginning on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. local
time and ending on Sunday at 6:00 p.m. local time.
``(3) Early closing.--A polling place may close between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. local time on Saturday and 6:00 a.m.
local time on Sunday as provided by the law of the State in
which the polling place is located.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) The table of sections for chapter 1 of title 3, United
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to
section 1 and inserting the following:

``1. Polling place hours.
``1A. Time of appointing electors.''.
(2) Sections 871(b) and 1751(f) of title 18, United States
Code, are each amended by striking ``title 3, United States
Code, sections 1 and 2'' and inserting ``sections 1A and 2 of
title 3''.
______

By Mr. LEAHY:
S. 150. A bill to provide Federal assistance to States for rural law
enforcement and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Rural
Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2009, a bill designed to help rural
communities deal with growing crime problems that threaten to become
significantly worse as a result of the devastating economic crisis we
face.
Congress and the new administration are beginning this session
focused on passing a stimulus bill that will provide hundreds of
billions of dollars to restart our economy, create jobs, and reverse
the economic downturn inherited from the Bush administration. The Bush
administration has already provided hundreds of billions of dollars to
rescue the financial industry, and President Bush released billions
more for assistance to the auto industry. Despite our legislative
efforts to protect jobs and the economy as a whole, little has been
done to help the millions of people in rural America, who have been hit
as hard as anyone by the devastating effects of this recession.
We must help rural communities stay safe during this economic
downturn. Rural areas, which lack the crime prevention and law
enforcement resources often available in larger communities, have a
particular need for assistance to combat the worsening drug and crime
problems that threaten the well-being of our small cities and towns
and, most particularly, our young people. The Rural Law Enforcement
Assistance Act of 2009 will provide just this kind of help.
This bill will reauthorize a rural law enforcement assistance program
first passed by Congress in the early 1990s. Like so many valuable
programs that help local law enforcement and crime prevention, funding
for this program was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration,
despite its effectiveness in contributing to the record drop in crime
in the late 1990s.
The program would authorize $75 million a year over the next 5 years
in new Byrne grant funds for State and local law enforcement,
specifically for rural States and rural areas within larger States.
This support would be used to hire police officers, purchase necessary
police equipment, and to promote the use of task forces and
collaborative efforts with Federal law enforcement. Just as important,
these funds would also be used for prevention and treatment programs in
rural communities; programs that are necessary to combat crime and are
too often the first programs cut in an economic downturn. This bill
also authorizes $2 million a year over 5 years for specialized training
for rural law enforcement officers, since training is another area
often cut in hard times. This bill will immediately help cash-strapped
rural communities with the law enforcement assistance they desperately
need.
In December, the Senate Judiciary Committee traveled to St. Albans,
Vermont, to hear from the people of that resilient community about the
growing problem of drug-related crime in rural America, and about the
innovative steps they are taking to combat that scourge. The
introduction of this bill is a step forward to apply the lessons
learned in that hearing and in previous crime hearings in Vermont and
elsewhere.
Crime is not just a big city issue. As we heard in St. Albans last
month, and at a hearing in Rutland, Vermont, earlier last year, the
drugs and violence so long seen largely in urban areas now plague even
our most rural and remote communities, as well. As the world grows
smaller with better transportation and faster communication, so do our
shared problems. Rural communities also face the added burden of
fighting these crime problems without the sophisticated task forces and
specialized squads so common in big cities and metropolitan areas. In
fact, too many rural communities, whether in Vermont or other rural
States, don't have the money for a local police force at all, and rely
almost exclusively on the state police or other state-wide agencies for
even basic police services. In this environment, we must do more to
provide assistance to those rural communities most at risk and hardest
hit by the economic crisis.
Unfortunately, for the last 8 years, throughout the country, State
and local law enforcement agencies have been stretched thin as they
shoulder both traditional crime-fighting duties and new homeland
security demands. They have faced continuous cuts in Federal funding
during the Bush years, and time and time again, our State and local law
enforcement officers have been unable to fill vacancies and get the
equipment they need.
This trend is unacceptable, and that is why we must restore funding
for rural law enforcement that proved so successful in 1990s, when
crime fell to record lows in rural and urban areas alike.
As a former prosecutor, I have always advocated vigorous enforcement
and punishment of those who commit serious crimes. But I also know that
punishment alone will not solve the problems of drugs and violence in
our rural communities. Police chiefs from Vermont and across the
country have told me that we cannot arrest our way out of this problem.

[[Page S137]]

Combating drug use and crime requires all the tools at our disposal,
including enforcement, prevention, and treatment. The best way to
prevent crime is often to provide young people with opportunities and
constructive things to do, so they stay away from drugs and crime
altogether. If young people do get involved with drugs, treatment in
many cases can work to help them to turn their lives around. Good
prevention and treatment programs have been shown again and again to
reduce crime, but regrettably, the Bush administration has consistently
sought to reduce funding for these important programs. It is time to
move in a new direction.
I will work with the new administration to advance legislation that
will give State and local law enforcement the support it needs, that
will help our cities and towns to implement the kinds of innovative and
proven community-based solutions needed to reduce crime. The
legislation I introduce today is a beginning, addressing the urgent and
unmet need to support our rural law enforcement as they struggle to
combat drugs and crime.
It is a first step for us to help our small cities and towns weather
the worsening conditions of these difficult times and begin to move in
a better direction. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will
join me in supporting this important legislation.
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. 150

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 ``Rural Law Enforcement
Assistance Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATIONS FOR RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

(a) Authorization of Appropriations for Rural Law
Enforcement.--Section 1001(a)(9) of title I of the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C.
3793(a)(9)) is amended to read as follows:
``(9) There are authorized to be appropriated to be carried
out part O--
``(A) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(B) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
``(C) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
``(D) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
``(E) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.''.
(b) Clarification of Rural State Definition.--Section
1501(b) of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe
Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796bb(b)) is amended by
striking all that follows ``a State in which the largest
county has fewer than'' and inserting ``200,000 people, based
on the decennial census of 2000 through fiscal year 2009.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations for Rural Law
Enforcement Training.--Section 180103(b) of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 14082(b))
is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a)--
``(1) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
``(2) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
``(3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
``(4) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
``(5) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.''.

SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF TITLES.

(a) Omnibus Crime Control Act.--Part O of the title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796bb et seq.) is amended by--
(1) striking the part heading and inserting ``Rural Law
Enforcement''; and
(2) striking the heading for section 1501 and inserting
``RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE''.
(b) Violent Crime Control Act.--Section 180103 of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42
U.S.C. 14082) is amended by striking the heading for the
section and inserting ``Rural Law Enforcement Training''.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 151. A bill to protect Indian arts and crafts through the
improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues
Senator Thomas, Senator Kyl, and Senator Domenici in introducing a bill
to amend the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. This legislation would improve
Federal laws that protect the integrity and originality of Native
American arts and crafts.
The Indian Arts and Crafts Act prohibits the misrepresentation in
marketing of Indian arts and crafts products, and makes it illegal to
display or sell works in a manner that falsely suggests it's the
product of an individual Indian or Indian Tribe. Unfortunately, the law
is written so that only the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI,
acting on behalf of the Attorney General, can investigate and make
arrests in cases of suspected Indian art counterfeiters. The bill we
are introducing would amend the law to expand existing Federal
investigative authority by authorizing other Federal investigative
bodies, such as the BIA Office of Law Enforcement, in addition to the
FBI, to investigate cases of misrepresentation of Indian arts and
crafts. This bill is similar to provisions included in S. 1255, which
passed the Senate last Congress but wasn't acted on by the House, and
the Native American Omnibus Technical Corrections Act of 2007, S. 2087.
A major source of tribal and individual Indian income is derived from
the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts. Yet, millions of dollars
are diverted each year from these original artists and Indian tribes by
those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. Few, if any,
criminal prosecutions have been brought in Federal court for such
violations. It is understandable that enforcing the criminal law under
the Indian Arts and Crafts Act is often stalled by the other
responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity
and violent crimes in Indian country. Therefore, expanding the
investigative authority to include other Federal agencies is intended
to promote the active investigation of alleged misconduct. It is my
hope that this much needed change will deter those who choose to
violate the law.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 152. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land
adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of
Arizona; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl
in reintroducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land
management study for lands adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National
Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of
management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure
adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. A
similar bill was introduced last Congress and received a hearing in the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on
National Parks. The bill being introduced today reflects suggested
changes of that Subcommittee and includes language that met their
approval. I am grateful for the input of the members of the
Subcommittee and their staff.
For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon
National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the
monument would be best protected from future development under
management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The
Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed
resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is
best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by
having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study
would help to resolve the question of future management and whether
expanding the monument's boundaries could compliment current public and
multiple-use needs.
The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management
options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources
of the study area. I fully expect that as this measure continues
through the legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding
offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work
to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bi-partisan manner.
This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the
management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and
protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful
monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

[[Page S138]]

______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
S. 153. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate
the Arizona National Scenic Trail; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator
Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility National Scenic Trail
Act. This bill would designate the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic
Trail.
The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands,
mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities.
The Trail is approximately 807 miles long and begins at the Coronado
National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of
Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border near the
Grand Canyon. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some
of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States.
The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of
ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing
trails into one continuous trail. In fact, the Trail route is so
topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert
to Alpine forests in one day.
For over a decade, more than 16 Federal, State, and local agencies,
as well as community and business organizations, have partnered to
create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Through their combined
efforts, these agencies and the members of the Arizona Trail
Association have completed over 90 percent of the longest contiguous
land-based trail in the State of Arizona. Designating the Arizona Trail
as a National Scenic Trail would help streamline the management of the
high-use trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is
preserved for future generations to enjoy.
Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established,
Congress has designated over 20 national trails. Before a trail
receives a national designation, a federal study is typically required
to assess the feasibility of establishing a trail route. The Arizona
Trail doesn't require a feasibility study because it's virtually
complete with less than 60 miles left to build and sign. All but 1-
percent of the trail resides on public land, and the unfinished
segments don't involve private property. The trail meets the criteria
to be labeled a National Scenic Trail and already appears on all
Arizona state maps. Therefore, the Congress has reason to forego an
unnecessary and costly feasibility study and proceed straight to
National Scenic Trail designation.
The Arizona Trail is known throughout the State as boon to outdoor
enthusiasts. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing
that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions
of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-
growing states in the United States, the designation of the Arizona
Trail as a National Scenic Trail would ensure the preservation of a
corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country
skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.
I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Bunning):
S. 155. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend
the taxation of unemployment compensation for 2 years; to the Committee
on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill I
offered last December that will provide much-needed relief to
struggling families across America. The Unemployment Benefit Tax
Suspension Act of 2009 is a critical piece of legislation, which should
be considered as part of any stimulus package, that would suspend the
collection of Federal income tax on unemployment benefits for 2008 and
2009. This bill would ensure that as individuals sit down in the next
couple months to complete their 2008 tax bills, they will not have to
worry about paying taxes on the unemployment benefits they received
last year or can get refunds of taxes withheld. It also means that the
unemployed would not be concerned with taxes on benefits paid this
year. I thank Senators Lincoln and Bunning for joining me to introduce
this legislation.
In light of the calamitous labor market, Congress must act to ensure
that workers who lose their jobs do not also lose their livelihoods. In
December, the Labor Department released sobering statistics that
demonstrated the gravity of the situation we face. In November, the
economy shed 533,000 jobs, the largest monthly job loss since December
1974. Our unemployment rate now stands at a perilous 6.7 percent, a 15-
year high. We have lost 1.9 million jobs since the beginning of our
present recession in December 2007--including two-thirds of those jobs
in the last 3 months alone--and the number of unemployed stands at a
whopping 10.3 million.
Suspending the Federal income tax on unemployment benefits is a
simple way to assist our Nation's unemployed workers and families. In
fact, the CBO has estimated that in 2005, of the 8.1 million recipients
of unemployment compensation benefits, 7.5 million had incomes of under
$100,000. As such, most of the benefits of suspending this tax are
likely to go to lower- and middle-income families, those struggling
harder than ever just to make ends meet.
During these challenging times, taxes on unemployment compensation
represents a burden that unemployed members of our society simply
cannot afford. Working families are already suffering, with the high
cost of groceries, an unstable energy market, and the outrageous
pricetag for health care. My bill offers a means to help stimulate the
economy by making unemployed workers' benefits stretch farther. While
it is certainly not a solution to the problem, it is a step in the
right direction.
President-elect Obama has voiced his support for this general idea,
calling it ``a way of giving more relief to families,'' and I believe
that is the ultimate goal we must pursue in these trying times. I look
forward to seeing this bill is passed in a timely manner, so that the
impact can be immediate.
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. 155

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 ``Unemployment Benefit Tax
Suspension Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF TAX ON UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

(a) In General.--Section 85 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to unemployment compensation) is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Temporary Suspension.--Subsection (a) shall not apply
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007, and
before January 1, 2010.''.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 156. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend
enhanced small business expensing and to provide for a 5-year net
operating loss carryback for losses incurred in 2008 or 2009; to the
Committee on Finance.
Ms, SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
provide critical tax incentives to our Nation's small businesses, which
will help them to make vital investments in new plant and equipment and
weather the recession that is crippling our Nation's economy. The Small
Business Stimulus Act of 2009 is just three pages, but by extending
enhanced small business expensing and establishing a 5-year carryback
for net operating losses, it would pack a powerful punch and assist
America's 26 million small firms that represent over 99.7 of all
employers. I am pleased that press reports indicate that President-
elect Obama will include these proposals in his stimulus initiative,
and I hope that Congress will feature them in any legislation we pass
in the coming weeks. I thank Senator Kerry for joining me to introduce
this legislation.
I have long championed so-called enhanced Section 179 expensing, and
I was gratified that Congress, as part of the Economic Stimulus Act of
2008, allowed small businesses in Maine and across the nation to
expense up to $250,000 of their investments, including

[[Page S139]]

the purchase of essential new equipment. Unfortunately, the incentive
in that bill was written to last just one year, and so, in 2009, absent
additional action, small firms will be able to expense just $133,000 of
new investment. Instead of being able to write off more of their
equipment purchases immediately, films will have to recover their costs
over 5, 7, or more years.
At a time in which we find ourselves in a recession and our nation's
small businesses are having trouble finding capital to make job-
creating new investments, we simply cannot allow that to occur.
Accordingly, my bill would allow small businesses to continue expensing
up to $250,000 of new investment in both 2009 and 2010. The purchase of
new equipment will undoubtedly contribute to continued productivity
growth in the business community, which economic experts have
repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our
economy.
Second, my bill recognizes that many businesses that were once
profitable are experiencing significant losses as a result of current
economic conditions. As a result, many are curtailing operations, and
over 2 million Americans lost their jobs in 2008. It is for this reason
that I am introducing a proposal to extend the net operating loss
carryback period from 2 to 5 years. In this way, businesses reporting
losses in 2008 and 2009 may offset those losses against profits from as
many as 5 years in the past and claim an immediate tax refund. They can
use that money to help sustain operations and retain employees while
the economy recovers. This proposal should be particularly beneficial
to small businesses, which are responsible for creating 75 percent of
net new jobs. Finally, I would note that although I proposed this very
change in January 2008 and it cleared the Finance Committee as part of
last year's stimulus legislation, it was subsequently dropped in
negotiations with the House of Representatives. I hope that this worthy
proposal does not suffer the same fate this year.
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. 156

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 ``Small Business Stimulus Act
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED EXPENSING FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (7) of section 179(b) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2008, 2009, or
2010'', and
(2) by striking ``2008'' in the heading thereof and
inserting ``2008, 2009, or 2010''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.

SEC. 3. 5-YEAR CARRYBACK OF NET OPERATING LOSSES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (H) of section 172(b)(1) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as
follows:
``(H) Carryback for 2008 and 2009 net operating losses.--In
the case of a net operating loss for any taxable year ending
during 2008 or 2009--
``(i) subparagraph (A)(i) shall be applied by substituting
`5' for `2',
``(ii) subparagraph (E)(ii) shall be applied by
substituting `4' for `2', and
``(iii) subparagraph (F) shall not apply.''.
(b) Alternative Tax Net Operating Loss Deduction.--
Subclause (I) of section 56(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:

``(I) the amount of such deduction attributable to the sum
of carrybacks of net operating losses from taxable years
ending during 2001, 2002, 2008, or 2009 and carryovers of net
operating losses to taxable years ending during such calendar
years, or''.

(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to net operating
losses arising in taxable years ending after December 31,
2007.
(2) Alternative tax net operating loss deduction.--The
amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable
years ending after 1997.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 157. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the temporary waiver of required minimum distribution rules for certain
retirement plans and accounts; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to
offer expanded relief to retirees who are forced to take so-called
required minimum distributions from their retirement accounts. After a
year in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell a staggering 34
percent, Congress rightly suspended required minimum distribution rules
for 2009 as part of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of
2008. Unfortunately, Congress did not act to suspend the rules for 2008
or 2010 as I had previously proposed. Consequently, we now find
ourselves in a situation in which 1 year of relief is insufficient to
enable retirees to recoup their losses, and I am, therefore,
introducing the Retirement Account Distribution Improvement Act of 2009
to allow amounts required to have been distributed in 2008 to be re-
contributed and to waive the rules for 2010. I would like to thank
Senator Lincoln for cosponsoring this legislation.
Under current law, individuals who have reached age 70.5 generally
must begin to withdraw funds from their IRAs or defined contribution
retirement plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457, and TSP plans. The
withdrawals must begin by April 1 of the year after which an individual
attains age 70.5. Failure to take a required minimum distribution may
result in a 50 percent excise tax on the difference between what must
be withdrawn and the amount actually distributed.
In times that equities markets are rising and retirement account
balances are growing, required minimum distribution rules are sensible.
Indeed, they ensure the Government gains revenue after years of tax-
deferred growth. Unfortunately, we are now witnessing unprecedented
losses in equities markets that have caused many individuals to suffer
steep losses in their retirement account balances. Notably,
the American Association of Retired Persons has said that retirement
accounts have lost as much as $2.3 trillion between September 30, 2007,
and October 16, 2008. Forcing individuals to prematurely liquidate
accounts and pay income taxes on the proceeds, as is required under
current law, instead of allowing them to wait until the market recovers
and continue to defer tax, simply adds insult to injury. Moreover,
mandating withdrawals may cause stock prices to fall, hurting other
investors.

It is for these reasons that I am today introducing legislation to
allow individuals who were forced to withdraw funds in 2008 to re-
contribute that money into their accounts by July 1, 2009. Any amounts
erroneously distributed in early 2009 could also be re-contributed by
July 1, 2009. Finally, my bill would also waive minimum required
distributions for 2010.
Although Congress took a solid first step by suspending minimum
required distributions for 2009, we must do more. With many predicting
a multi-year recession, Congress must adopt a longer-term approach to
helping individuals protect their retirement assets and weather the
current economic storm. Individuals may require several years to recoup
losses they have sustained, and by enabling them to keep assets in
their retirement accounts until 2011, this bill offers them that
opportunity. At that point, Congress can reevaluate whether the waiver
of current-law rules should be further extended.
I urge all Senators to consider the benefits this legislation will
provide to millions of retirees all across the United States, and I
look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it in a timely
manner.
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. 157

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 ``Retirement Account
Distribution Improvement Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF WAIVER OF REQUIRED MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION
RULES FROM CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLANS AND
ACCOUNTS.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (H) of section 401(a)(9) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by the Worker,
Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008, is amended--
(1) by striking ``for calendar year 2009'' in clause (i)
and inserting ``for calendar years 2008, 2009 or 2010'',

[[Page S140]]

(2) by striking ``2009'' in clause (ii)(I) and inserting
``2010'', and
(3) by striking ``to calendar year 2009'' in clause
(ii)(II) and inserting ``to calendar years 2008, 2009, or
2010''.
(b) Eligible Rollover Distributions.--The last sentence of
section 402(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
added by the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of
2008, is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2008,
2009, or 2010''.
(c) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
(2) Recontributions of distributions in 2008 or early
2009.--
(A) In general.--If a person receives 1 or more eligible
distributions, the person may, on or before July 1, 2009,
make one or more contributions (in an aggregate amount not
exceeding all eligible distributions) to an eligible
retirement plan and to which a rollover contribution of such
distribution could be made under section 402(c), 403(a)(4),
403(b)(8), 408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as the case may be. For purposes of the
preceding sentence, rules similar to the rules of clauses
(ii) and (iii) of section 402(c)(11)(A) of such Code shall
apply in the case of a beneficiary who is not the surviving
spouse of the employee or of the owner of the individual
retirement plan.
(B) Eligible distribution.--For purposes of this
paragraph--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
term ``eligible distribution'' means an applicable
distribution to a person from an individual account or
annuity--

(I) under a plan which is described in clause (iv), and
(II) from which a distribution would, but for the
application of section 401(a)(9)(H) of such Code, have been
required to have been made to the individual for 2008 or
2009, whichever is applicable, in order to satisfy the
requirements of sections 401(a)(9), 404(a)(2), 403(b)(10),
408(a)(6), 408(b)(3), and 457(d)(2) of such Code.

(ii) Eligible distributions limited to required
distributions.--The aggregate amount of applicable
distributions which may be treated as eligible distributions
for purposes of this paragraph shall not exceed--

(I) for purposes of applying subparagraph (A) to
distributions made in 2008, the amount which would, but for
the application of section 401(a)(9)(H) of such Code, have
been required to have been made to the individual in order to
satisfy the requirements of sections 401(a)(9), 404(a)(2),
403(b)(10), 408(a)(6), 408(b)(3), and 457(d)(2) of such Code
for 2008, and
(II) for purposes of applying subparagraph (A) to
distributions made in 2009, the sum of the amount which
would, but for the application of such section 401(a)(9)(H),
have been required to have been made to the individual in
order to satisfy such requirements for 2009, plus the excess
(if any) of the amount described in subclause (I) which may
be distributed in 2009 to meet such requirements for 2008
over the portion of such amount taken into account under
subclause (I) for distributions made in 2008.

(iii) Applicable distribution.--

(I) In general.--The term ``applicable distribution'' means
a payment or distribution which is made during the period
beginning on January 1, 2008, and ending on June 30, 2009.
(II) Exception for minimum required distributions for other
years.--Such term shall not include a payment or distribution
which is required to be made in order to satisfy the
requirements of section 401(a)(9), 404(a)(2), 403(b)(10),
408(a)(6), 408(b)(3), or 457(d)(2) of such Code for a
calendar year other than 2008 or 2009.
(III) Exception for payments in a series.--In the case of
any plan described in clause (iv)(I), such term shall not
include any payment or distribution made in 2009 which is a
payment or distribution described in section 402(c)(4)(A).

(iv) Plans described.--A plan is described in this clause
if the plan is--

(I) a defined contribution plan (within the meaning of
section 414(i) of such Code) which is described in section
401, 403(a), or 403(b) of such Code or which is an eligible
deferred compensation plan described in section 457(b) of
such Code maintained by an eligible employer described in
section 457(e)(1)(A)) of such Code, or
(II) an individual retirement plan (as defined in section
7701(a)(37) of such Code).

(C) Treatment of repayments of distributions from eligible
retirement plans other than iras.--For purposes of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a contribution is made
pursuant to subparagraph (A) with respect to a payment or
distribution from a plan other than an individual retirement
plan, then the taxpayer shall, to the extent of the amount of
the contribution, be treated as having received the payment
or distribution in an eligible rollover distribution (as
defined in section 402(c)(4) of such Code) and as having
transferred the amount to the plan in a direct trustee to
trustee transfer.
(D) Treatment of repayments for distributions from iras.--
For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a
contribution is made pursuant to subparagraph (A) with
respect to a payment or distribution from an individual
retirement plan (as defined by section 7701(a)(37) of such
Code), then, to the extent of the amount of the contribution,
such payments or distributions shall be treated as a
distribution that satisfies subparagraphs (A) and (B) of
section 408(d)(3) of such Code and as having been transferred
to the individual retirement plan in a direct trustee to
trustee transfer.
(3) Provisions relating to plan or contract amendments.--
(A) In general.--If this paragraph applies to any pension
plan or contract amendment, such pension plan or contract
shall be treated as being operated in accordance with the
terms of the plan during the period described in subparagraph
(B)(ii)(I).
(B) Amendments to which paragraph applies.--
(i) In general.--This paragraph shall apply to any
amendment to any pension plan or annuity contract which--

(I) is made by pursuant to the amendments made by this
section, and
(II) is made on or before the last day of the first plan
year beginning on or after January 1, 2011.

In the case of a governmental plan, subclause (II) shall be
applied by substituting ``2012'' for ``2011''.
(ii) Conditions.--This paragraph shall not apply to any
amendment unless during the period beginning on January 1,
2009, and ending on December 31, 2010 (or, if earlier, the
date the plan or contract amendment is adopted), the plan or
contract is operated as if such plan or contract amendment
were in effect.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Brown, and Mrs.
Lincoln:
S. 158. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand
the availability of industrial development bonds to facilities
manufacturing intangible property; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation
that would provide State and local development finance authorities with
greater flexibility in promoting economic growth that meets the
changing realities of an ever more global economy. Specifically, my
bill would expand the definition of ``manufacturing'' as it pertains to
the small-issue Industrial Development Bond, IDB, program to include
the creation of ``intangible'' property. I am pleased to be joined by
Senators Kerry, Brown, and Lincoln in reintroducing this critical
legislation to promote economic development, and I strongly believe it
would be a critical additional to any stimulus legislation.
Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy
remains the envy of the world, even during these difficult economic
times. Knowledge-based businesses have been at the forefront of this
innovation that has bolstered the economy over the long-term. For
example, science parks have helped lead the technological revolution
and have created more than 300,000 high-paying science and technology
jobs, along with another 450,000 indirect jobs for a total of 750,000
jobs in North America.
It is clear that the promotion of knowledge-based industries can be a
key economic tool for States and localities. This is especially true
for States that have seen a loss in traditional manufacturing. In my
home State of Maine, we lost 28 percent of our total manufacturing
employment over the last decade. I believe that it is critical that we
provide States and localities with a wider range of options in
promoting economic development, particularly as our economy lost over 2
million jobs in 2008. My legislation will do just that by expanding the
availability of small-issue IDBs to new economy industries, such as
software and biotechnology, that have proven their ability to provide
high-paying jobs.
These IDBs allow State and local development finance authorities,
like the Finance Authority of Maine, to issue tax-exempt bonds for the
purpose of raising capital to provide low-cost financing of
manufacturing facilities. These bonds, therefore, provide local
authorities with an invaluable tool to attract new employers and assist
existing ones to grow. The result is a win-win situation for local
communities providing them with much needed jobs. Consequently, it only
makes sense to ensure that these finance authorities have maximum
flexibility in options to grow jobs.
In addition, my bill provides some technical clarity to distinguish
between the phrases ``functionally related and subordinate facilities''
and ``directly related and ancillary facilities.'' Until 1988, there
was little confusion based on Treasury regulations going back to 1972
that made it clear that ``functionally related and subordinate
facilities'' were clearly eligible for

[[Page S141]]

financing through private activity tax-exempt bonds. But, Congress
enacted the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Bond Act of 1988 that
imposed a limitation that not more than 25 percent of tax-exempt bond
financing could be used on ``directly related and ancillary
facilities.'' While these two phrases appear to be very similar, they
are indeed distinguishable from each other. Unfortunately, the Internal
Revenue Service has blurred this distinction between the phrases which
has had an adverse impact on the way facilities are able to utilize
tax-exempt bond financing. My legislation would make it clear that
``functionally related and subordinate facilities'' are not susceptible
to the 25 percent limitation.
We must continue to encourage all avenues of economic development if
America is to compete in a changing and increasingly global economy,
and my legislation is one small step in furtherance of that goal. I
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and to include it
in stimulus legislation we will be considering in the coming weeks.
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. 158

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF AVAILABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT BONDS TO FACILITIES MANUFACTURING
INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.

(a) Expansion to Intangible Property.--
(1) In general.--The first sentence of section
144(a)(12)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining
manufacturing facility) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``, creation,'' after ``used in the
manufacturing'', and
(B) by inserting ``or intangible property which is
described in section 197(d)(1)(C)(iii)'' before the period at
the end.
(2) Clarification.--The last sentence of section
144(a)(12)(C) of such Code is amended to read as follows:
``For purposes of the first sentence of this subparagraph,
the term `manufacturing facility' includes--
``(i) facilities which are functionally related and
subordinate to a manufacturing facility (determined without
regard to this clause), and
``(ii) facilities which are directly related and ancillary
to a manufacturing facility (determined without regard to
this clause) if--

``(I) such facilities are located on the same site as the
manufacturing facility, and
``(II) not more than 25 percent of the net proceeds of the
issue are used to provide such facilities.''.

(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
______

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin, and
Mr. Feingold):
S. 160. A bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and
the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity
today, obviously early on this first day of this new session of
Congress, together with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to
introduce bipartisan legislation which will finally grant citizens of
our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia, voting representation,
the proper representation to which they are entitled as citizens.
That representative voting would be in the House of Representatives.
This bill is entitled ``The District of Columbia House Voting Rights
Act of 2009.'' It is identical to a bill which Senator Hatch and I
introduced in the 110th Congress.
It would, for the first time, give citizens of the District of
Columbia full voting representation in the House while adding a fourth
congressional seat for the State of Utah based on population statistics
from the 2000 census in which they came very close. I think the people
of Utah would in fact say they deserve an additional seat.
This is the fifth session in which I have introduced legislation to
try to correct what I believe is a fundamental wrong--which is to deny
the citizens of our Nation's Capital voting representation in Congress.
I hope and believe and pray this is the session in which we are going
to get this done.
Last year, this bill passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of
271 to 177, but it fell three votes short of gaining cloture in the
Senate, though the vote in favor was 57 to 42. With a new Congress and
a new President who was in fact a cosponsor of this bill himself in the
last session of Congress, I am hopeful we can pass this legislation,
vital to the rights of nearly 600,000 Americans living in the District
of Columbia. Keep in mind the population of the District, though small
compared to many States, is roughly equal to the State populations of
Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming, all of which have, of
course, not only representation--that is, voting in the House--but two
Senators here. This deals only and exclusively with voting
representation in the House.
I want to particularly thank my dear friend and colleague, Senator
Orin Hatch, for his continued, principled, steadfast support of this
bill. He set aside partisanship to join me and others in trying to
right this historic wrong. I greatly admire his commitment to this
cause.
I am also proud to say Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd,
Sanders, Kerry, Durbin, and Feingold are today joining as original
cosponsors of this legislation.
Of course, I pay special honor and thanks to the DC Delegate, Eleanor
Holmes Norton, who has been a tireless champion of full representation
for the citizens of the District; of course, a tireless champion for
the citizens of the District generally. Delegate Norton is introducing
a similar bill in the House today.
I do this with a certain special personal pride because Delegate
Norton and I were at law school at Yale at the same time just a few
years ago. It probably would seem, to the casual observer, hard to
believe that we deny the residents of our Nation's Capital of the right
to have a voting representative in the House of Representatives. In
fact, public opinion polls have been taken over the years that ask
people: Do you think the residents of the District of Columbia have
voting representation in the House? Overwhelming, the American public
says: Of course they do, because they cannot believe there would be a
reason to deny them the representation.
In recent years, those who have opposed this legislation which would
correct a historic injustice have argued that congressional
representation is granted only to the States under the Constitution,
and therefore our legislation is unconstitutional.
With all respect, I believe that simply is not true. The Constitution
provides Congress with the authority to bestow voting rights on the
District. Multiple constitutional experts, spanning the full
ideological spectrum of left to right, including Ken Starr, former
judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and former Solicitor General, and
Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney General, and many others have told
Congress and the public that this authority, which is, the authority to
grant representation in Congress, lies within the District Clause of
the Constitution, which is article I, section 8, where it states:

Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such District.

Congress has repeatedly used this authority to treat the District of
Columbia as a State for various public purposes. For example, as long
ago as 1940, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was revised to broaden diversity
jurisdiction to include citizens of the District, even though the
Constitution specifically provides that national courts may hear cases
``between citizens of different States.''
In other words, in that act, Congress said no, for purposes of
diversity of jurisdiction access to the courts, even though the
Constitution says that courts may hear cases between citizens of
different States. It would be incomprehensible that citizens of the
District of Columbia, because they happen to live in the Nation's
Capital, could not gain access to the Federal courts.
When challenged, this revision to the Judiciary Act was upheld as
constitutional by the Federal courts themselves. Furthermore, the
courts have found that Congress has the authority to impose national
taxes on the District, to provide a jury trial to residents of the
District, and to include

[[Page S142]]

the District in interstate commerce regulations.
These are rights and responsibilities that our Constitution grants to
States. Yet the District Clause has allowed Congress to apply those
rights and responsibilities to the District of Columbia because not to
do so would make residents of the District, or the District itself,
second class in their citizenship.
Treating the District as a State for purposes of voting
representation in Congress should be no different. The elections of
2008 saw a historic number of citizens carrying out their civic duty by
voting for their representatives in Congress. Unfortunately, for over
200 years, DC residents have been denied that most basic right.
According to a 2005 KRC Research poll, 82 percent of Americans, when
told that residents of the District do not have a voting representative
in Congress, say it is time to give that voting representation to the
citizens of our Nation's Capital.
This has very practical and just consequences. People of the District
have been the target directly of terrorist attacks, but they have no
vote on how the Federal Government provides for their homeland
security. Men and women citizens of the District have fought bravely in
our wars, in defense of our security and our freedom over the years,
many giving their lives in defense of our country. Yet citizens of the
District have no voting representation in Congress on the serious
questions of war and peace, veterans' benefits, and the like. Of
course, the citizens of the District of Columbia, per capita, pay
Federal income taxes at the second highest rate in the Nation. Yet they
have absolutely no voice, no voting representation, in setting tax
rates or in determining how the revenues raised by those taxes will be
spent.
This is plain wrong. The Supreme Court has said ``that no right is
more precious in a free country than that of having a vote in the
election of those who make the laws, under which, as good citizens, we
must live.''
We can no longer deny our fellow American citizens who happen to live
in the District of Columbia this precious right. With the United States
engaged now in two wars, a global war also against terrorists who
attacked us on 9/11/2001, with our country facing the most significant
economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is past time to grant
the vote to those citizens living in our Nation's Capital so their vote
can be rightfully heard as we debate these great and complex issues of
our time.
This matter has fallen, according to our rules, under the
jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, which I am privileged to chair. I hope we will be
able to take it up quickly. It is my intention to consider this
legislation at the first markup of our committee in the session, and
then to bring it to the floor as quickly as possible with a high sense
of optimism that on this occasion, if there is another filibuster that
we will have, with the help of the new Members of the Senate, more than
60 votes necessary to close it off, and at least have a vote on this
question of fundamental rights for 600,000 of our fellow Americans.
I want to submit not only an original copy of the bill to the clerk,
but also for the Record a statement from Senator Hatch, which I ask
unanimous consent to appear as if read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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. 160

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 ``District of Columbia House
Voting Rights Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT.

(a) Congressional District and No Senate Representation.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the District of Columbia shall be considered a
Congressional district for purposes of representation in the
House of Representatives.
(2) No representation provided in senate.--The District of
Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of
representation in the United States Senate.
(b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Apportionment of
Members of House of Representatives.--
(1) Inclusion of single district of columbia member in
reapportionment of members among states.--Section 22 of the
Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the fifteenth and
subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for
apportionment of Representatives in Congress'', approved June
28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a), is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) This section shall apply with respect to the District
of Columbia in the same manner as this section applies to a
State, except that the District of Columbia may not receive
more than one Member under any reapportionment of Members.''.
(2) Clarification of determination of number of
presidential electors on basis of 23rd amendment.--Section 3
of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking ``come
into office;'' and inserting the following: ``come into
office (subject to the twenty-third article of amendment to
the Constitution of the United States in the case of the
District of Columbia);''.

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Permanent Increase in Number of Members.--Effective
with respect to the 112th Congress and each succeeding
Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of
437 Members, including the Member representing the District
of Columbia pursuant to section 2(a).
(b) Reapportionment of Members Resulting From Increase.--
(1) In general.--Section 22(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act
to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial
censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives
in Congress'', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is
amended by striking ``the then existing number of
Representatives'' and inserting ``the number of
Representatives established with respect to the 112th
Congress''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census
conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular decennial
census.
(c) Transmittal of Revised Apportionment Information by
President.--
(1) Statement of apportionment by president.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
President shall transmit to Congress a revised version of the
most recent statement of apportionment submitted under
section 22(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide
for apportionment of Representatives in Congress'', approved
June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account this Act
and the amendments made by this Act and identifying the State
of Utah as the State entitled to one additional
Representative pursuant to this section.
(2) Report by clerk.--Not later than 15 calendar days after
receiving the revised version of the statement of
apportionment under paragraph (1), the Clerk of the House of
Representatives shall submit a report to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives identifying the State of Utah as the
State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to
this section.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; TIMING OF ELECTIONS.

The general election for the additional Representative to
which the State of Utah is entitled for the 112th Congress
and the general election for the Representative from the
District of Columbia for the 112th Congress shall be subject
to the following requirements:
(1) The additional Representative from the State of Utah
will be elected pursuant to a redistricting plan enacted by
the State, such as the plan the State of Utah signed into law
on December 5, 2006, which--
(A) revises the boundaries of Congressional districts in
the State to take into account the additional Representative
to which the State is entitled under section 3; and
(B) remains in effect until the taking effect of the first
reapportionment occurring after the regular decennial census
conducted for 2010.
(2) The additional Representative from the State of Utah
and the Representative from the District of Columbia shall be
sworn in and seated as Members of the House of
Representatives on the same date as other Members of the
112th Congress.

SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Repeal of Office of District of Columbia Delegate.--
(1) Repeal of office.--
(A) In general.--Sections 202 and 204 of the District of
Columbia Delegate Act (Public Law 91-405; sections 1-401 and
1-402, D.C. Official Code) are repealed, and the provisions
of law amended or repealed by such sections are restored or
revived as if such sections had not been enacted.
(B) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from
the District of Columbia takes office.
(2) Conforming amendments to district of columbia elections
code of 1955.--The District of Columbia Elections Code of
1955 is amended as follows:
(A) In section 1 (sec. 1-1001.01, D.C. Official Code), by
striking ``the Delegate to the House of Representatives,''
and inserting ``the Representative in Congress,''.

[[Page S143]]

(B) In section 2 (sec. 1-1001.02, D.C. Official Code)--
(i) by striking paragraph (6); and
(ii) in paragraph (13), by striking ``the Delegate to
Congress for the District of Columbia,'' and inserting ``the
Representative in Congress,''.
(C) In section 8 (sec. 1-1001.08, D.C. Official Code)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``Delegate'' and inserting
``Representative''; and
(ii) by striking ``Delegate,'' each place it appears in
subsections (h)(1)(A), (i)(1), and (j)(1) and inserting
``Representative in Congress,''.
(D) In section 10 (sec. 1-1001.10, D.C. Official Code)--
(i) in subsection (a)(3)(A)--

(I) by striking ``or section 206(a) of the District of
Columbia Delegate Act''; and
(II) by striking ``the office of Delegate to the House of
Representatives'' and inserting ``the office of
Representative in Congress'';

(ii) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``Delegate,'' each
place it appears; and
(iii) in subsection (d)(2)--

(I) by striking ``(A) In the event'' and all that follows
through ``term of office,'' and inserting ``In the event that
a vacancy occurs in the office of Representative in Congress
before May 1 of the last year of the Representative's term of
office,''; and
(II) by striking subparagraph (B).

(E) In section 11(a)(2) (sec. 1-1001.11(a)(2), D.C.
Official Code), by striking ``Delegate to the House of
Representatives,'' and inserting ``Representative in
Congress,''.
(F) In section 15(b) (sec. 1-1001.15(b), D.C. Official
Code), by striking ``Delegate,'' and inserting
``Representative in Congress,''.
(G) In section 17(a) (sec. 1-1001.17(a), D.C. Official
Code), by striking ``the Delegate to Congress from the
District of Columbia'' and inserting ``the Representative in
Congress''.
(b) Repeal of Office of Statehood Representative.--
(1) In general.--Section 4 of the District of Columbia
Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative of 1979 (sec.
1-123, D.C. Official Code) is amended as follows:
(A) By striking ``offices of Senator and Representative''
each place it appears in subsection (d) and inserting
``office of Senator''.
(B) In subsection (d)(2)--
(i) by striking ``a Representative or'';
(ii) by striking ``the Representative or''; and
(iii) by striking ``Representative shall be elected for a
2-year term and each''.
(C) In subsection (d)(3)(A), by striking ``and 1 United
States Representative''.
(D) By striking ``Representative or'' each place it appears
in subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h).
(E) By striking ``Representative's or'' each place it
appears in subsections (g) and (h).
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Statehood commission.--Section 6 of such Initiative
(sec. 1-125, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(i) in subsection (a)--

(I) by striking ``27 voting members'' and inserting ``26
voting members'';
(II) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5); and
(III) by striking paragraph (6) and redesignating paragraph
(7) as paragraph (6); and

(ii) in subsection (a-1)(1), by striking subparagraph (H).
(B) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 8 of such
Initiative (sec. 1-127, D.C. Official Code) is amended by
striking ``and House''.
(C) Application of honoraria limitations.--Section 4 of
D.C. Law 8-135 (sec. 1-131, D.C. Official Code) is amended by
striking ``or Representative'' each place it appears.
(D) Application of campaign finance laws.--Section 3 of the
Statehood Convention Procedural Amendments Act of 1982 (sec.
1-135, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``and
United States Representative''.
(E) District of columbia elections code of 1955.--The
District of Columbia Elections Code of 1955 is amended--
(i) in section 2(13) (sec. 1-1001.02(13), D.C. Official
Code), by striking ``United States Senator and
Representative,'' and inserting ``United States Senator,'';
and
(ii) in section 10(d) (sec. 1-1001.10(d)(3), D.C. Official
Code), by striking ``United States Representative or''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from
the District of Columbia takes office.
(c) Conforming Amendments Regarding Appointments to Service
Academies.--
(1) United states military academy.--Section 4342 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (5); and
(B) in subsection (f), by striking ``the District of
Columbia,''.
(2) United states naval academy.--Such title is amended--
(A) in section 6954(a), by striking paragraph (5); and
(B) in section 6958(b), by striking ``the District of
Columbia,''.
(3) United states air force academy.--Section 9342 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (5); and
(B) in subsection (f), by striking ``the District of
Columbia,''.
(4) Effective date.--This subsection and the amendments
made by this subsection shall take effect on the date on
which a Representative from the District of Columbia takes
office.

SEC. 6. NONSEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS AND NONAPPLICABILITY.

(a) Nonseverability.--If any provision of this Act or any
amendment made by this Act is declared or held invalid or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Act or any
amendment made by this Act shall be treated and deemed
invalid and shall have no force or effect of law.
(b) Nonapplicability.--Nothing in the Act shall be
construed to affect the first reapportionment occurring after
the regular decennial census conducted for 2010 if this Act
has not taken effect.

SEC. 7. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

If any action is brought to challenge the constitutionality
of any provision of this Act or any amendment made by this
Act, the following rules shall apply:
(1) The action shall be filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-
judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28,
United States Code.
(2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to
the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary
of the Senate.
(3) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only
by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of
appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional
statement within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.
(4) It shall be the duty of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of
the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to
the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action
and appeal.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I did in the last Congress, I am
cosponsoring the legislation introduced today by the Senator from
Connecticut to provide a House seat for the District of Columbia and an
additional House seat for Utah.
Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of
self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage
would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that no right is more precious
in a free country than having a voice in the election of those who
govern us. I continue to believe what I stated more than 30 years ago
here on the Senate floor, that Americans living in the District should
enjoy all the privileges of citizenship, including voting rights.
The bill introduced today would treat the District of Columbia as a
congressional district to provide for full representation in the House.
The bill states, however, that the District shall not be treated as a
State for representation in this body.
No matter how worthwhile or even compelling an objective might be,
however, we cannot legislatively pursue it without authority grounded
in the Constitution. I would note that the Constitution explicitly
gives Congress legislative authority over the District ``in all cases
whatsoever.'' This authority is unparalleled in scope and has been
called sweeping, plenary, and extraordinary by the courts. It surpasses
both the authority a State legislature has over its own State and the
authority Congress has over legislation affecting the States.
Some have argued that despite the centrality of representation and
suffrage, and notwithstanding our unparalleled and plenary authority
over the District, that Congress cannot provide a House seat for the
District by legislation. They base their argument on a single word.
Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution provides that the House of
Representatives shall be composed of members chosen by the people of
the several States. Because the District is not a State, the argument
goes, it cannot have a House seat without a constitutional amendment,
I studied this issue extensively and published my analysis and
conclusions in the Harvard Journal on Legislation for everyone to
consider. I ask unanimous consent that this article be made part of the
Record following my remarks. Let me here just mention a few
considerations that I found persuasive.
First, as I have already mentioned, the default position of our
system of government is representation and suffrage. That principle is
so fundamental that, in this case, I believe there must be actual
evidence that America's founders intended to deny it to District
residents, No such evidence exists.
Second, establishing and maintaining the District as a separate
political jurisdiction does not require disenfranchising its residents.
The

[[Page S144]]

founders wanted the capital to be free from State control and I support
keeping it that way. Giving the District a House seat changes neither
that status nor Congress' legislative authority over the District.
Third, America's founders not only did not intend to disenfranchise
District residents, they demonstrated the opposite intention by their
own legislative actions. In 1790, Congress provided by legislation for
Americans living in the land ceded for the District to vote in
congressional elections. No one even suggested that this legislation
was unconstitutional because that land was not part of a State. If
Congress could do it then, Congress can do it today.
Fourth, courts have held for more than two centuries that
constitutional provisions framed in terms of States can be applied to
the District or that Congress can legislatively accomplish for the
District what the Constitution accomplishes for States. Congress, for
example, has authority to regulate commerce among the several States.
The Supreme Court held in 1889 that this applies to the District. Do
opponents of giving the District a House seat believe Congress cannot
regulate commerce involving the District?
The original Constitution provided that direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States. The Supreme Court held in 1820
that Congress' legislative authority over the District allows taxation
of the District. Do opponents of giving the District a House seat
believe that the District is suitable for taxation but not for
representation?
The Constitution provides that federal courts may review lawsuits
between citizens of different States. The Supreme Court held in 1805
that Congress can legislatively extend this to the District even though
the Constitution does not.
The list goes on involving provisions of the Constitution, statues,
and even treaties. Over and over, courts have ruled either that
provisions framed in terms of States can be directly applied to the
District or that Congress can legislatively do so. Perhaps opponents of
giving the District a House seat believe that all of these decisions
over more than two centuries were wrong, that the word States begins
and ends the discussion in every case. They cannot say so in the
present case without confronting those precedents.
These and other considerations which I discussed in the article I
mentioned have led me to conclude that the Constitution allows Congress
legislatively to provide a House seat for the District. I do want to
repeat my continuing opposition to District representation in the
Senate. The District's status as a non-State jurisdiction is not
relevant to representation in the House, which was designed to
represent people, but it is relevant to representation in the Senate,
which was designed to represent states. I would once again emphasize
that the bill introduced today explicitly disclaims Senate
representation for the District.
In December 2006, I signed a letter to the majority and minority
leaders expressing the same position I had taken three decades earlier.
It stated that while there are many differences between Utah and the
District, to be sure, they share the right to be represented in our
country's legislature. I take the same position today, believing that
Congress may and should pass the bill introduced today to provide for
that representation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 to end the unfair treatment of
District of Columbia residents and give them voting representation in
the House of Representatives. For over 200 hundred years, the residents
of the District of Columbia have been denied a voting Member
representing their views in Congress. That is wrong, and I hope the
Senate will consider this important issue early this year to remedy the
disenfranchisement that residents of our Nation's capital have endured.
When the Senate considered this legislation last Congress the
Republican minority chose to filibuster the bill. While a majority
favored it, we fell short of the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster
and pass it. Earlier that year, however, the House of Representatives
worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a version of a voting rights bill
for the District of Columbia led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes
Norton. As a young lawyer, she worked for civil rights and voting
rights around the country. It is a cruel irony that upon her return to
the District of Columbia, and her election to the House of
Representatives, she does not yet have the right to vote on behalf of
the people of the District of Columbia who elected her. She is a strong
voice in Congress, but the citizens living in the Nation's capital
deserve a vote, as well.
The bill introduced today would give the District of Columbia
delegate a vote in the House. It would give Utah a fourth seat in the
House as well. Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on
a similar measure and we heard compelling testimony from constitutional
experts. They testified that this legislation is constitutional, and
highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power to confer statehood
on the District certainly contains the lesser one, the power to grant
District residents voting rights in the House of Representatives.
Congress has repeatedly treated the District of Columbia as a ``State''
for various purposes. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton testified
that although ``the District is not a State,'' the ``Congress has not
had the slightest difficulty in treating the District as a State, with
its laws, its treaties, and for constitutional purposes.'' Examples of
these actions include a revision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that
broadened Article III diversity jurisdiction to include citizens of the
District even though the Constitution only provides that Federal courts
may hear cases ``between citizens of different States.'' Congress has
also treated the District as a ``State'' for purposes of congressional
power to regulate commerce ``among the several States.'' The Sixteenth
Amendment grants Congress the power to directly tax incomes ``without
apportionment among the several States,'' but has been interpreted also
to apply to residents of the District. In fact, the District of
Columbia pays the second highest Federal taxes per capita without any
say in how those dollars are spent.
I believe that this legislation is within Congress's powers as
provided in the Constitution. I agree with Congressman John Lewis,
Congresswoman Norton and numerous other civil rights leaders and
constitutional scholars that we should extend the basic right of voting
representation to the hundreds of thousands of Americans residing in
the District of Columbia. These Americans pay Federal taxes, defend our
country in the military and serve on Federal juries.
This is an historic measure that holds great significance within the
civil rights community and for the residents of the District of
Columbia. I urge Senators to do what is right and to support this bill
when it comes to the floor for full Senate consideration.
Over 50 years ago, the Senate overrode filibusters to pass the Civil
Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Congressman Lewis, a courageous leader during those transformational
struggles decades ago, gave moving testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee last Congress in which he reminded us that ``we in
Congress must do all we can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the
mission of equal justice.'' The Senate should continue to fight for the
fundamental rights of all Americans and stand united in serving this
noble purpose. No person's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed
or denied in the United States of America. Let us move forward together
and provide full voting rights for the citizens in our Nation's
capital.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr.
Graham, and Mr. Coburn.)
S. 162. A bill to provide greater accountability of taxpayers'
dollars by curtailing congressional earmarking, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, the junior Senator from Missouri,
Mrs. McCaskill, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, and the
senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing the
Fiscal Discipline, Earmark Reform, and Accountability Act of 2009.
Senator McCain has been one of the preeminent champions

[[Page S145]]

of earmark reform, and I have been pleased to work with him in fighting
this abuse over the last two decades. Senators McCaskill and Coburn,
though newer to the Senate, have been two of the most effective
advocates of earmark reform since taking office. And Senator Graham has
been a courageous champion of reform as well, and during consideration
of the Lobbying and Ethics Reform measure in the 110th Congress was a
critical vote in helping to strengthen the earmark provisions of that
legislation.
That measure was the most significant earmark reform Congress has
ever enacted, and it reflected a growing recognition by Members that
the business-as-usual days of using earmarks to avoid the scrutiny of
the authorizing process or of competitive grants are coming to an end.
It is no accident that the presidential nominees of the two major
parties were major players on that reform package.
Mr. President, it would be a mistake not to acknowledge just how far
we have come. The Lobbying and Ethics Reform bill was an enormous step
forward, and I commend our Majority Leader, Senator Reid, as well as
our former colleague from Illinois, President-elect Obama, for their
work in ensuring the passage of that landmark bill.
But it would also be a mistake not to admit that we still have a way
to go. The Fiscal Discipline, Earmark Reform, and Accountability Act of
2009 will build on the significant achievement of the 110th Congress by
moving from what has largely been a system designed to dissuade the use
of earmarks through disclosure to one that actually makes it much more
difficult to enact them.
The principal provision of this measure is the establishment of a
point of order against unauthorized earmarks on appropriations bills.
To overcome that point of order, supporters of the unauthorized earmark
will need to obtain a super-majority of the Senate. As a further
deterrent, the bill provides that any earmarked funding which is
successfully stricken from the appropriations bill will be unavailable
for other spending in that bill.
The measure also closes a loophole in last year's Lobbying and Ethics
Reform bill by requiring all appropriations conference reports and all
authorizing conference reports to be electronically searchable 48 hours
before the Senate considers the conference report. And it requires all
recipients of federal funds to disclose any money spent on registered
lobbyists.
I am delighted that President-elect Obama has announced that the
expected economic recovery package which may be proposed in the next
few days should be kept free of earmarks. I couldn't agree more, and I
expect to join with Senators McCain, McCaskill, Graham, and Coburn to
see that the recovery package is free of unauthorized earmarks.
In the past, this urgently needed measure was just the kind of
legislation that typically attracted unauthorized earmarks. We are much
more likely to be successful in keeping that package and other
appropriations bills free of earmarks if we are able to use the tools
proposed in this legislation.
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. 162

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 ``Fiscal Discipline, Earmark
Reform, and Accountability Act''.

SEC. 2. REFORM OF CONSIDERATION OF APPROPRIATIONS BILLS IN
THE SENATE.

(a) In General.--Rule XVI of the Standing Rules of the
Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
``9.(a) On a point of order made by any Senator:
``(1) No new or general legislation nor any unauthorized
appropriation may be included in any general appropriation
bill.
``(2) No amendment may be received to any general
appropriation bill the effect of which will be to add an
unauthorized appropriation to the bill.
``(3) No unauthorized appropriation may be included in any
amendment between the Houses, or any amendment thereto, in
relation to a general appropriation bill.
``(b)(1) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(1)
against a Senate bill or amendment is sustained--
``(A) the new or general legislation or unauthorized
appropriation shall be struck from the bill or amendment; and
``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated
necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from
the bill or amendment shall be made.
``(2) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(1) against
an Act of the House of Representatives is sustained when the
Senate is not considering an amendment in the nature of a
substitute, an amendment to the House bill is deemed to have
been adopted that--
``(A) strikes the new or general legislation or
unauthorized appropriation from the bill; and
``(B) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts
appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the
matter struck from the bill;
``(c) If the point of order against an amendment under
subparagraph (a)(2) is sustained, the amendment shall be out
of order and may not be considered.
``(d)(1) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(3)
against a Senate amendment is sustained--
``(A) the unauthorized appropriation shall be struck from
the amendment;
``(B) any modification of total amounts appropriated
necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck from
the amendment shall be made; and
``(C) after all other points of order under this paragraph
have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider
the amendment as so modified.
``(2) If a point of order under subparagraph (a)(3) against
a House of Representatives amendment is sustained--
``(A) an amendment to the House amendment is deemed to have
been adopted that--
``(i) strikes the new or general legislation or
unauthorized appropriation from the House amendment; and
``(ii) modifies, if necessary, the total amounts
appropriated by the bill to reflect the deletion of the
matter struck from the House amendment; and
``(B) after all other points of order under this paragraph
have been disposed of, the Senate shall proceed to consider
the question of whether to concur with further amendment.
``(e) The disposition of a point of order made under any
other paragraph of this rule, or under any other Standing
Rule of the Senate, that is not sustained, or is waived, does
not preclude, or affect, a point of order made under
subparagraph (a) with respect to the same matter.
``(f) A point of order under subparagraph (a) may be waived
only by a motion agreed to by the affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If an appeal is
taken from the ruling of the Presiding Officer with respect
to such a point of order, the ruling of the Presiding Officer
shall be sustained absent an affirmative vote of three-fifths
of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.
``(g) Notwithstanding any other rule of the Senate, it
shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of
order that several provisions of a general appropriation bill
or an amendment between the Houses on a general appropriation
bill violate subparagraph (a). The Presiding Officer may
sustain the point of order as to some or all of the
provisions against which the Senator raised the point of
order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of
order as to some or all of the provisions against which the
Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions
against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of
order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this paragraph.
Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order,
any Senator may move to waive such a point of order, in
accordance with subparagraph (f), as it applies to some or
all of the provisions against which the point of order was
raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance
with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the
Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator
may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a
point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions
on which the Presiding Officer ruled.
``(h) For purposes of this paragraph:
``(1) The term `new or general legislation' has the meaning
given that term when it is used in paragraph 2 of this rule.
``(2) The term `new matter' means matter not committed to
conference by either House of Congress.
``(3)(A) The term `unauthorized appropriation' means a
`congressionally directed spending item' as defined in rule
XLIV--
``(i) that is not specifically authorized by law or Treaty
stipulation (unless the appropriation has been specifically
authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the
Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an
estimate submitted in accordance with law); or
``(ii) the amount of which exceeds the amount specifically
authorized by law or Treaty stipulation (or specifically
authorized by an Act or resolution previously passed by the
Senate during the same session or proposed in pursuance of an
estimate submitted in accordance with law) to be
appropriated.
``(B) An appropriation is not specifically authorized if it
is restricted or directed to, or authorized to be obligated
or expended for the benefit of, an identifiable person,
program, project, entity, or jurisdiction by earmarking or
other specification, whether by

[[Page S146]]

name or description, in a manner that is so restricted,
directed, or authorized that it applies only to a single
identifiable person, program, project, entity, or
jurisdiction, unless the identifiable person, program,
project, entity, or jurisdiction to which the restriction,
direction, or authorization applies is described or otherwise
clearly identified in a law or Treaty stipulation (or an Act
or resolution previously passed by the Senate during the same
session or in the estimate submitted in accordance with law)
that specifically provides for the restriction, direction, or
authorization of appropriation for such person, program,
project, entity, or jurisdiction.
``10. (a) On a point of order made by any Senator, no new
or general legislation, nor any unauthorized appropriation,
new matter, or nongermane matter may be included in any
conference report on a general appropriation bill.
``(b) If the point of order against a conference report
under subparagraph (a) is sustained--
``(1) the new or general legislation, unauthorized
appropriation, new matter, or nongermane matter in such
conference report shall be deemed to have been struck;
``(2) any modification of total amounts appropriated
necessary to reflect the deletion of the matter struck shall
be deemed to have been made;
``(3) when all other points of order under this paragraph
have been disposed of--
``(A) the Senate shall proceed to consider the question of
whether the Senate should recede from its amendment to the
House bill, or its disagreement to the amendment of the
House, and concur with a further amendment, which further
amendment shall consist of only that portion of the
conference report not deemed to have been struck (together
with any modification of total amounts appropriated);
``(B) the question shall be debatable; and
``(C) no further amendment shall be in order; and
``(4) if the Senate agrees to the amendment, then the bill
and the Senate amendment thereto shall be returned to the
House for its concurrence in the amendment of the Senate.
``(c) The disposition of a point of order made under any
other paragraph of this rule, or under any other Standing
Rule of the Senate, that is not sustained, or is waived, does
not preclude, or affect, a point of order made under
subparagraph (a) with respect to the same matter.
``(d) A point of order under subparagraph (a) may be waived
only by a motion agreed to by the affirmative vote of three-
fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. If an appeal is
taken from the ruling of the Presiding Officer with respect
to such a point of order, the ruling of the Presiding Officer
shall be sustained absent an affirmative vote of three-fifths
of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.
``(e) Notwithstanding any other rule of the Senate, it
shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of
order that several provisions of a conference report on a
general appropriation bill violate subparagraph (a). The
Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some
or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the
point of order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the
point of order as to some or all of the provisions against
which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those
provisions against which the Presiding Officer sustains the
point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this
paragraph. Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point
of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of
order, in accordance with subparagraph (d), as it applies to
some or all of the provisions against which the point of
order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in
accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After
the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any
Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on
such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the
provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.
``(f) For purposes of this paragraph:
``(1) The terms `new or general legislation', `new matter',
and `unauthorized appropriation' have the same meaning as in
paragraph 9.
``(2) The term `nongermane matter' has the same meaning as
in rule XXII and under the precedents attendant thereto, as
of the beginning of the 110th Congress.''.
(b) Requiring Conference Reports To Be Searchable Online.--
Paragraph 3(a)(2) of rule XLIV of the Standing Rules of the
Senate is amended by inserting ``in an searchable format''
after ``available''.

SEC. 3. LOBBYING ON BEHALF OF RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 is amended by adding
after section 5 the following:

``SEC. 5A. REPORTS BY RECIPIENTS OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

``(a) In General.--A recipient of Federal funds shall file
a report as required by section 5(a) containing--
``(1) the name of any lobbyist registered under this Act to
whom the recipient paid money to lobby on behalf of the
Federal funding received by the recipient; and
``(2) the amount of money paid as described in paragraph
(1).
``(b) Definition.--In this section, the term `recipient of
Federal funds' means the recipient of Federal funds
constituting an award, grant, or loan.''.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am proud to again be joining forces with
my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to
introduce a comprehensive earmark reform measure. We are also pleased
to be joined by Senators McCaskill, Graham, and Coburn as cosponsors in
this effort. The measure we are introducing today is designed to
eliminate unauthorized earmarks and wasteful spending in appropriations
bills and conference reports and help restore fiscal discipline to
Washington. Specifically, this bill would allow any member to raise a
point of order in an effort to extract objectionable unauthorized
provisions. Additionally, it contains a requirement that all
appropriations and authorization conference reports be electronically
searchable at least 48 hours before full Senate consideration, and a
requirement that the recipients of Federal dollars disclose any amounts
that they spend on registered lobbyists. These are reasonable,
responsible reform measures that deserve consideration by the full
Senate.
Our current economic situation and our vital national security
concerns require that now, more than ever, we prioritize our Federal
spending. But our appropriations bills do not always put our national
priorities first. The process is broken and it needs to be fixed. As we
enter the second year of a recession, the economy is in shambles.
Record numbers of homeowners face foreclosure, our financial markets
have nearly collapsed, and the U.S. automobile manufacturers are near
ruin. The national unemployment rate stands at 6.7 percent--the highest
in 15 years--with over 1.9 million people having lost their jobs last
year.
In the last year alone, due to the mortgage crisis, the Government
has seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress passed a
massive $700 billion rescue of the financial markets, and we've debated
giving the big-three auto manufacturers tens of billions in taxpayer
dollars--just as a ``short-term'' infusion of cash--knowing that they'd
be back for more. Additionally, we're getting ready to consider an
economic stimulus package which is estimated to cost as much as $850
billion to a trillion dollars. With all of this spending, we can no
longer afford to waste even a single dime of taxpayer money.
It is abundantly clear that the time has come for us to eliminate the
corrupt, wasteful practice of earmarking. We have made some progress on
the issue in the past couple of years, but we have not gone far enough.
Legislation we passed in 2007 provided for greater disclosure of
earmarks. While that was a good step forward, the bottom line is that
we don't simply need more disclosure of earmarks--we need to eliminate
them.
As my colleagues are well aware, for years I have been coming to the
Senate floor to read list after list of the ridiculous items we've
spent money on--hoping enough embarrassment might spur some change. And
year after year I would offer amendment after amendment to strip pork
barrel projects from spending bills--usually only getting a handful of
votes each time.
Finally, I was encouraged in January 2007 when this body passed, by a
vote of 96-2, an ethics and lobbying reform package which contained
real, meaningful earmark reform. I thought that, at last, we would
finally enact some effective reforms. Unfortunately, that victory was
short lived. In August 2007, we were presented with a bill containing
very watered down earmark provisions. Not only did that bill, S. 1, do
far too little to rein in wasteful spending--it completely gutted the
earmark reform provisions we passed overwhelmingly the previous
January.
Earmarks, Mr. President, are like a cancer. Left unchecked, they have
grown out of control--increasing by nearly 400 percent since 1994. And
just as cancer destroys tissue and vital organs, the corruption
associated with the process of earmarking is destroying what is vital
to our strength as a nation--that is the faith and trust of the
American people in their elected representatives and in the
institutions of their government.
Not long ago, in the House of Representatives, when another member
questioned the necessity of one of his earmarked projects, a
Congressman raged at the idea of someone challenging what he described
as ``my

[[Page S147]]

money, my money.'' Therein lies the problem, Mr. President. Too many
Members of Congress view taxpayers, funds as their own. They feel free
to spend it as they see fit, with no oversight and, often, no shame.
Look at some of the things we've funded over the years: $225,000 for an
Historic Wagon Museum in Utah, $1 million for a DNA study of bears in
Montana, $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Ohio, $220,000
for blueberry research at the University of Maine, $3 million for an
animal waste management research facility in Kentucky, $170,000 for
blackbird management in Kansas, $196,000 for geese control in New York,
$50,000 for feral hog control in Missouri, $90,000 for the National
Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Fort Worth, Texas, $200,000 for an
American White Pelican survey, $6 million for sugarcane growers in
Hawaii, $13 million for a ewe lamb retention program, $500,000 to study
flight attendant fatigue, $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in
Pennsylvania and New York, $3 million for the production of a
documentary about Alaska, $1 million for a waterless urinal initiative,
$500,000 for a Teapot museum in North Carolina, $1.1 million to
research the use of Alaskan salmon in baby food, $25 million for a fish
hatchery in Montana, $37 million over four years to the Alaska
Fisheries Marketing Board to ``promote and develop fishery products and
research pertaining to American fisheries.'' So how exactly does this
Board spend the money Congress so generously earmarks every year? Well,
they spent $500,000 of it to paint a giant salmon on the side of an
Alaska Airlines 747--and nicknamed it the ``Salmon Forty Salmon.''
Unfortunately, I could go on and on with examples of wasteful
earmarks that have been approved by Congress. And we wonder why our
approval rating stands at 20 percent.
The corruption which stems from the practice of earmarking has
resulted in current and former Members of both the House and Senate
either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison. Let's be
clear--it wasn't inadequate lobbyist disclosure requirements which led
Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in
bribes in exchange for doling out $70-$80 million of the taxpayer's
funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark
taxpayer funds without question.
We cannot allow this to continue. Now is the time to put a stop to
this corrupt practice. The bill we are introducing today seeks to
reform the current system by empowering all Members with a tool to rid
appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, pork barrel projects, and
legislative policy riders and to provide greater public disclosure of
the legislative process.
We, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in
a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and
confidence in Congress. An informed citizenry is essential to a
thriving democracy. A democratic government operates best in the
disinfecting light of the public eye. By seriously addressing the
corrupting influence of earmarks, we will allow Members to legislate
with the imperative that our Government must be free from corrupting
influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the
erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not
become a collapse of confidence. We can, and we must, end the practice
of earmarking.
Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for his strong
leadership on this issue, and I encourage the Senate act quickly to
approve this measure.
______

By Mr. REID:
S.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution ensuring that the compensation and
other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior
are those which were in effect on January 1, 2005; considered and
passed.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
joint resolution be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was
ordered to be placed in the Record, as follows:

S.J. Res. 3

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. COMPENSATION AND OTHER EMOLUMENTS ATTACHED TO THE
OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

(a) In General.--The compensation and other emoluments
attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior shall be
those in effect January 1, 2005, notwithstanding any increase
in such compensation or emoluments after that date under any
provision of law, or provision which has the force and effect
of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the
period beginning at noon of January 3, 2005, and ending at
noon of January 3, 2011.
(b) Civil Action and Appeal.--
(1) Jurisdiction.--Any person aggrieved by an action of the
Secretary of the Interior may bring a civil action in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia to
contest the constitutionality of the appointment and
continuance in office of the Secretary of the Interior on the
ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in
violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the
Constitution. The United States District Court for the
District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over
such a civil action, without regard to the sum or value of
the matter in controversy.
(2) Three judge panel.--Any claim challenging the
constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in
office of the Secretary of the Interior on the ground that
such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of
article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution, in an
action brought under paragraph (1) shall be heard and
determined by a panel of three judges in accordance with
section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. It shall be the
duty of the district court to advance on the docket and to
expedite the disposition of any matter brought under this
subsection.
(3) Appeal.--
(A) Direct appeal to supreme court.--An appeal may be taken
directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any
interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the
validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the
Secretary of the Interior under article I, section 6, clause
2, of the Constitution, entered in any action brought under
this subsection. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice
of appeal filed within 20 days after such judgment, decree,
or order is entered.
(B) Jurisdiction.--The Supreme Court shall, if it has not
previously ruled on the question presented by an appeal taken
under subparagraph (A), accept jurisdiction over the appeal,
advance the appeal on the docket, and expedite the appeal.
(c) Effective Date.--This joint resolution shall take
effect at 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2009.

____________________