[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 25, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3786-S3802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, 
        Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Nelson, of Florida):
  S. 690. A bill to amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 
Act to reauthorize the Act; to the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Neotropical 
Migratory Bird Conservation Act with the support of my colleagues, Mr. 
Crapo, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Menendez, and Mr. Nelson. This 
bill supports habitat protection, education, research, monitoring, and 
capacity building to provide for the long-term protection of 
neotropical migratory birds. It does this by providing grants to 
countries in Latin America and the Caribbean for the conservation of 
these birds, through a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service competitive 
matching grants program. Up to one-quarter of the annual grants can 
also be used for projects in the United States. Projects include 
activities that benefit bird populations, such as habitat restoration, 
research and monitoring, law enforcement, and outreach and education.
  Neotropical migratory birds breed in Canada and the U.S. during our 
summer and spend our winters in Latin America and the Caribbean. There 
are nearly 500 species of these birds, and they face a range of 
threats, including development pressures, invasive species, climate 
change, and avian diseases. Protecting these birds requires 
international cooperation.
  The NMBCA program has a proven track record of reversing habitat loss 
and advancing conservation strategies for the broad range of 
neotropical birds that populate the United States and the rest of the 
Western hemisphere. The public-private partnerships and international 
collaboration provided by this program are integral to preserving 
vulnerable bird populations. Just as importantly, this Federal program 
is a good value for taxpayers, leveraging over four dollars in partner 
contributions for every one that we spend.
  Migratory birds are not only beautiful creatures eagerly welcomed by 
millions of Americans into their backyards every year; they help 
generate $2.7 billion annually for the U.S. economy through wildlife 
watching activities, and they help our farmers by consuming billions of 
harmful insect pests. Bird watchers include over 48 million Americans, 
20 million of whom take annual trips to watch birds. In 2006, 20 
million American wildlife watchers spent $12.8 billion on trip-related 
expenditures. Americans spend $3.3 billion each year on bird food. 16 
million Americans spend $790 million each year on bird houses, nest 
boxes, feeders, and baths.
  The Baltimore Oriole, the state bird of my state of Maryland, 
migrates in flocks to southern Mexico, Central America, and northern 
South America. The Oriole has recently been threatened by destruction 
of breeding habitat and tropical winter habitat, and by toxic 
pesticides ingested by the insects which constitute the Oriole's main 
diet. This legislation will help ensure that the broad range of 
migratory birds, from the Cerulean Warbler to the Baltimore Oriole, 
will have the healthy habitat they need on both ends of their annual 
migration routes so they can continue to play their vital biological, 
recreational, and economic roles.
  Congress passed the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 
2000 and it became public law 106-527. It authorized an annual $5 
million for each of the fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Since 2002, the 
U.S. has invested more than $25 million in 262 projects in 44 U.S. 
states, Canada, and 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries, and 
leveraged an additional $112 million in partner funds to support these 
projects. The reauthorization legislation would authorize $8 million 
for fiscal year 2010, gradually escalating to $20 million for fiscal 
year 2015, in order to meet expanding funding needs.
  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. 690

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

     SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD 
                   CONSERVATION ACT.

       Section 10 of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 6109) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 10. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     to carry out this Act, to remain available until expended--
       ``(1) $8,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       ``(2) $11,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
       ``(3) $13,000,000 for fiscal year 2012;
       ``(4) $16,000,000 for fiscal year 2013;
       ``(5) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2014; and
       ``(6) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Of the amounts made available under 
     subsection (a) for each fiscal year, not less than 75 percent 
     shall be expended for projects carried out at a location 
     outside of the United States.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNET (for himself and Mr. Udall of Colorado):
  S. 691. A bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
establish a national cemetery for veterans in southern Colorado region, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am proud to join today with 
my colleague and fellow Coloradan Senator Michael Bennet in introducing 
legislation to create a national veterans' cemetery in El Paso County, 
CO, and provide a respectful final resting place that our Colorado 
veterans so deserve.
  In a few months, we will honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice 
in defending our Nation, as we celebrate Memorial Day weekend. On that 
weekend, friends and family members of our departed veterans will go to 
Veterans Affairs, VA, cemeteries throughout the

[[Page S3787]]

country to honor the memory of their loved ones. Unfortunately, too 
many family members will have to travel far too many miles to pay their 
respects. Even worse, the long distance that some veterans' survivors 
must travel will prevent them from making the trip at all.
  This is true of the loved ones of veterans in southern Colorado, 
whose population features one of the highest concentrations of veterans 
in the Nation. The vast majority of veterans in southern Colorado are 
located far outside of a 75-mile radius of the nearest VA cemeteries, 
Fort Logan National Cemetery in Denver and Fort Lyon National Cemetery 
in Bent County.
  For nearly a decade, it has been a goal of the Pikes Peak Veterans 
Cemetery Committee, as well as the Department of Colorado Veterans of 
Foreign Wars, the Colorado chapters of the American Legion, the 
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Association for Service Disabled 
Veterans, to bring a national cemetery to El Paso County. In the last 
Congress, Representative John Salazar introduced legislation that would 
address this issue, and I supported that legislation along with other 
members of the Colorado delegation.
  That bill, H.R. 1660, passed the House of Representatives unanimously 
by voice vote, highlighting the support southern Colorado veterans have 
received from the entire Nation for the establishment of a VA cemetery 
in El Paso County. Unfortunately, the Senate did not act on this bill 
in the last Congress.
  I hope--and I know that veterans throughout Colorado hope--that this 
year will be different. Representative Salazar has again introduced a 
House bill, and today we introduce the Senate companion. Senator Bennet 
and I will work hard to raise awareness of the need for a new national 
cemetery for southern Colorado and get this bill passed in the Senate. 
We need to ensure that all of our veterans receive the recognition they 
deserve with a final resting place close to their own communities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                 S. 691

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

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CEMETERY IN SOUTHERN 
                   COLORADO REGION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     establish, in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38, United 
     States Code, a national cemetery in El Paso County, Colorado, 
     to serve the needs of veterans and their families in the 
     southern Colorado region.
       (b) Consultation in Selection of Site.--Before selecting 
     the site for the national cemetery established under 
     subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with--
       (1) appropriate officials of the State of Colorado and 
     local officials in the southern Colorado region; and
       (2) appropriate officials of the United States, including 
     the Administrator of General Services, with respect to land 
     belonging to the United States in El Paso County, Colorado, 
     that would be suitable to establish the national cemetery 
     under subsection (a).
       (c) Authority to Accept Donation of Parcel of Land.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may 
     accept on behalf of the United States the gift of an 
     appropriate parcel of real property. The Secretary shall have 
     administrative jurisdiction over such parcel of real 
     property, and shall use such parcel to establish the national 
     cemetery under subsection (a).
       (2) Income tax treatment of gift.--For purposes of Federal 
     income, estate, and gift taxes, the real property accepted 
     under paragraph (1) shall be considered as a gift to the 
     United States.
       (d) Report.--As soon as practicable after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report on the establishment of the national cemetery under 
     subsection (a). The report shall set forth a schedule for 
     such establishment and an estimate of the costs associated 
     with such establishment.
       (e) Southern Colorado Region Defined.--In this Act, the 
     term ``southern Colorado region'' means the geographic region 
     consisting of the following Colorado counties:
       (1) El Paso.
       (2) Pueblo.
       (3) Teller.
       (4) Fremont.
       (5) Las Animas.
       (6) Huerfano.
       (7) Custer.
       (8) Costilla.
       (9) Alamosa.
       (10) Saguache.
       (11) Conejos.
       (12) Mineral.
       (13) Archuleta.
       (14) Hinsdale.
       (15) Gunnison.
       (16) Pitkin.
       (17) La Plata.
       (18) Montezuma.
       (19) San Juan.
       (20) Ouray.
       (21) San Miguel.
       (22) Dolores.
       (23) Montrose.
       (24) Delta.
       (25) Mesa.
       (26) Crowley.
       (27) Kiowa.
       (28) Bent.
       (29) Baca.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Bingaman, and Mr. 
        Lieberman):
  S. 693. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
grants for the training of graduate medical residents in preventive 
medicine; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am here today to lay the foundation for 
what I hope will be a broad effort to reform our health care system. In 
these troubled economic times, it has never been more clear that our 
current system is broken. I have said many times that we do not have a 
``health'' care system, we have a ``sick'' care system. If you are 
sick, you get care. We spend untold hundreds of billions on pills, 
surgery, hospitalization, and disability. But we spend peanuts about 3 
percent of our health-care dollars for prevention. There are huge, 
untapped opportunities in the area of wellness and prevention.
  Last fall, I was honored to be asked by Senator Kennedy to lead the 
Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee's working group on 
Prevention and Public Health in our health reform efforts. I am a long-
time believer that prevention and wellness are the keys to solving our 
health care crisis. Our working group has already started looking at 
prevention and public health-based solutions. We have held three 
hearings so far. First, we laid down the case for why prevention and 
public health strategies are so important to improving health care. We 
heard from a variety of experts, including health economists and 
successful health promotion programs in the corporate world and in 
small communities. It was clear that prevention works and that we can 
not afford not to do it. Next, we heard from a number of States about 
the innovative things they are doing to improve public health and 
encourage wellness. We heard about universal coverage in Massachusetts, 
improving quality and reducing cost in North Carolina's Medicaid 
program, and emphasizing prevention and chronic care management in 
Iowa. Some truly groundbreaking efforts are already underway in many 
states. Finally, we held a hearing about access to public health and 
wellness services for vulnerable populations. We heard about some 
creative solutions addressing public health disparities for children, 
seniors, individuals with disabilities, and folks in rural areas. In 
all of our hearings, we have learned a great deal about what we are 
doing right to make prevention happen. But we have also learned about 
how far we still have to go in making sure that everyone has the 
opportunity to become healthier.
  What is abundantly clear to me is that we can and must do more. We 
have good science behind us, and we know that there are many proven 
techniques to make our population healthier. This is particularly true 
in preventive medicine, where health care providers have expertise both 
in medicine and in public health. These are the people we need to help 
tackle our growing obesity epidemic, the alarming trends in 
cardiovascular disease and drug-resistant bacterial infections. They 
can both treat patients and address public health concerns. They 
understand both the physiology of disease and the population effects of 
disease. They know how to provide the best care for the patient and the 
broader population.
  When tens of millions of Americans suffer from preventable diseases 
such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and some types of cancer we 
need experts in preventive medicine. And even

[[Page S3788]]

though the need is growing, our work force in preventive medicine is 
shrinking. We are not training enough preventive medicine specialists, 
and our capacity to do so is being limited. Though there were 90 
preventive medicine residency programs in 1999, today there are only 
71. Today, I am introducing legislation, along with Senators Isakson, 
Bingaman and Lieberman, to make sure that we train enough professionals 
in preventive medicine. The Preventive Medicine and Public Health 
Training Act will provide training grants to medical schools, teaching 
hospitals, schools of public health, and public health departments to 
fund existing programs and in some cases develop new residency training 
programs in Preventive Medicine. This bill is designed with one simple 
goal in mind: to improve and increase our prevention workforce. We have 
seen how an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure, but we 
know that we need someone to provide that ounce of prevention. And our 
bill will help train future generations of experts in Preventive 
Medicine.
  This legislation is a small but vitally important part of our efforts 
at health reform. In the coming months, I will be working with HELP 
Committee Chairman Kennedy and other interested members to ensure that, 
as we craft legislation to provide health insurance to all, we do so in 
a way that guarantees that all Americans have access to and take 
advantage of exemplary preventive care. We must guarantee that our 
health care system will not just fix us when we are sick, but keep us 
well throughout our lifetimes. We must lay down a marker today to say 
that reforming our health care system means rejecting our current 
delivery of ``sick care'' and instead strengthening our ability to 
provide ``well care'' through preventive medicine. Today's legislation 
is just one part of that effort, and I look forward to working with 
other interested Senators to build on this legislation as health care 
reform moves forward.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 694. A bill to provide assistance to Best Buddies to support the 
expansion and development of mentoring programs, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator Orrin 
Hatch the Best Buddies Empowerment for People with Intellectual 
Disabilities Act of 2009. The bill we are introducing would help to 
better integrate individuals with intellectual disabilities into their 
communities, improve their quality of life and promote the 
extraordinary gifts of these individuals.
  I am proud to introduce this bill with my good friend Senator Hatch. 
He has been a long time leader in the cause of Americans with 
disabilities. We, as a society, have an obligation to do all we can to 
better include individuals with disabilities within our communities and 
help them to reach their full potential.
  Yet, as one study on teen attitudes notes: ``Legal mandates cannot, 
however, mandate acceptance by peers, neighbors, fellow employees, 
employers or any of the other groups of individuals who directly impact 
the lives of people with disabilities.'' People with intellectual 
disabilities have indeed gained many rights that have improved their 
lives; however, negative stereotypes abound. Social isolation, 
unfortunately, is the norm for too many people with intellectual 
disabilities.
  Early intervention, effective education, and appropriate support all 
go a long way toward helping individuals with intellectual disabilities 
achieve the best of his or her abilities and lead a meaningful life in 
the community. I would like to tell you about the accomplishments of 
Best Buddies, a remarkable non-profit organization that is dedicated to 
helping people with intellectual disabilities develop relationships 
that will provide the support needed to help them reach their 
potential.
  Founded in 1989, Best Buddies is the only national social and 
recreational program in the United States for people with intellectual 
disabilities. Best Buddies works to enhance the lives of people with 
intellectual disabilities by providing opportunities for friendship and 
integrated employment. Through more than one thousand volunteer-run 
chapters at middle schools, high schools and colleges, students with 
and without intellectual disabilities are paired up in a one-to-one 
mentoring friendship. Best Buddies also facilitates an Internet pen pal 
program, an adult friendship program, and a supported employment 
program.
  Approximately 7,000,000 people in the U.S. have an intellectual 
disability; every one of these individuals would benefit from the kind 
of relationships that the Best Buddies programs help to establish. The 
resulting friendships are mutually beneficial, increasing the self-
esteem, confidence, and abilities of people both with and without 
intellectual disabilities.
  The legislation we introduce today would allow the Secretary of 
Education to award grants to promote the expansion of the Best Buddies 
programs and to increase participation in and public awareness about 
these programs. The bill authorizes $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010 
and such sums as necessary through fiscal year 2014. If passed, this 
legislation would allow Best Buddies to expand their valuable work and 
offer programs in every state in the America, helping to create a more 
inclusive society with a direct and positive impact on more than 1.2 
million citizens.
  I thank my colleague Senator Hatch for working with me on this 
important legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me in 
supporting this legislation that will make a positive--and needed--
difference in the lives of individuals with intellectual disabilities 
and in the lives of those with whom they develop relationships through 
the Best Buddies 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. 694

       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 ``Best Buddies Empowerment for 
     People with Intellectual Disabilities Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Best Buddies operates the first national social and 
     recreational program in the United States for people with 
     intellectual disabilities.
       (2) Best Buddies is dedicated to helping people with 
     intellectual disabilities become part of mainstream society.
       (3) Best Buddies is determined to end social isolation for 
     people with intellectual disabilities by promoting meaningful 
     friendships between them and their non-disabled peers in 
     order to help increase the self-esteem, confidence, and 
     abilities of people with and without intellectual 
     disabilities.
       (4) Since 1989, Best Buddies has enhanced the lives of 
     people with intellectual disabilities by providing 
     opportunities for 1-to-1 friendships and integrated 
     employment.
       (5) Best Buddies is an international organization spanning 
     1,300 middle school, high school, and college campuses.
       (6) Best Buddies implements programs that will positively 
     impact more than 400,000 individuals in 2009 and expects to 
     impact 500,000 people by 2010.
       (7) The Best Buddies Middle Schools program matches middle 
     school students with intellectual disabilities with other 
     middle school students and supports 1-to-1 friendships 
     between them.
       (8) The Best Buddies High Schools program matches high 
     school students with intellectual disabilities with other 
     high school students and supports 1-to-1 friendships between 
     them.
       (9) The Best Buddies Colleges program matches adults with 
     intellectual disabilities with college students and creates 
     1-to-1 friendships between them.
       (10) The Best Buddies e-Buddies program supports e-mail 
     friendships between people with and without intellectual 
     disabilities.
       (11) The Best Buddies Citizens program pairs adults with 
     intellectual disabilities in 1-to-1 friendships with other 
     individuals in the corporate and civic communities.
       (12) The Best Buddies Jobs program promotes the integration 
     of people with intellectual disabilities into the community 
     through supported employment.
       (b) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are to--
       (1) provide support to Best Buddies to increase 
     participation in and public awareness about Best Buddies 
     programs that serve people with intellectual disabilities;
       (2) dispel negative stereotypes about people with 
     intellectual disabilities; and
       (3) promote the extraordinary contributions of people with 
     intellectual disabilities.

     SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR BEST BUDDIES.

       (a) Education Activities.--The Secretary of Education may 
     award grants to, or enter

[[Page S3789]]

     into contracts or cooperative agreements with, Best Buddies 
     to carry out activities to promote the expansion of Best 
     Buddies, including activities to increase the participation 
     of people with intellectual disabilities in social 
     relationships and other aspects of community life, including 
     education and employment, within the United States.
       (b) Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--Amounts appropriated to carry out this Act 
     may not be used for direct treatment of diseases, medical 
     conditions, or mental health conditions.
       (2) Administrative activities.--Not more than 5 percent of 
     amounts appropriated to carry out this Act for a fiscal year 
     may be used for administrative activities.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to limit the use of non-Federal funds by Best 
     Buddies.

     SEC. 4. APPLICATION AND ANNUAL REPORT.

       (a) Application.--
       (1) In general.--To be eligible for a grant, contract, or 
     cooperative agreement under section 3(a), Best Buddies shall 
     submit an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary of Education may 
     require.
       (2) Content.--At a minimum, an application under this 
     subsection shall contain the following:
       (A) A description of activities to be carried out under the 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
       (B) Information on specific measurable goals and objectives 
     to be achieved through activities carried out under the 
     grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.
       (b) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--As a condition of receipt of any funds 
     under section 3(a), Best Buddies shall agree to submit an 
     annual report at such time, in such manner, and containing 
     such information as the Secretary of Education may require.
       (2) Content.--At a minimum, each annual report under this 
     subsection shall describe the degree to which progress has 
     been made toward meeting the specific measurable goals and 
     objectives described in the applications submitted under 
     subsection (a).

     SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Education for grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements 
     under section 3(a), $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, and 
     such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4 succeeding 
     fiscal years.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Brown, and 
        Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 695. A bill to authorize the Secretary of Commerce to reduce the 
matching requirement for participants in the Hollings Manufacturing 
Partnership Program; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of critical 
legislation that I am introducing, along with Senators Kohl, Stabenow, 
Brown, and Lieberman, to reduce the cost share amount that the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, faces in obtaining its 
annual funding. The MEP is a nationwide public-private network of 
counseling and assistance centers that provide our nation's nearly 
350,000 small and medium manufacturers with services and access to 
resources that enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand 
capacity. The MEP's contribution to sustaining America's manufacturing 
sector is indisputable. In fiscal year 2008 alone, MEP clients created 
or retained 57,079 jobs; provided cost savings in excess of $1.44 
billion; and generated over $10.5 billion in sales.
  At present, individual MEP centers must raise a full two-thirds of 
their funding after their fourth year of operation, placing a heavy 
burden on these centers. The National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, NIST, at the Department of Commerce, in turn, provides \1/
3\ of the centers' funding. MEP centers can meet their portion of the 
cost share requirement through funds from universities, State and local 
governments, and other institutions.
  In today's tumultuous economy, these centers are experiencing 
increased difficulties finding adequate funding from both private and 
public sources. As economic concerns weigh down on all of us, States, 
organizations, and groups that traditionally assist MEP centers in 
meeting this cost share are reluctant to expend the money--or do not 
have the resources to do so.
  Our bill is simple and straightforward. It would reduce the statutory 
cost share that MEP centers face to 50 percent for all years of the 
centers' operation. Frankly, the Nation's MEP centers are subject to an 
unnecessarily restrictive cost share requirement. It is inequitable, as 
the MEP is the only initiative out of the 80 programs funded by the 
Department of Commerce that is subject to a statutory cost share of 
greater than 50 percent. There is no reason for this to persist, 
particularly not during this trying economy when so many manufacturers 
are trying to remain afloat.
  The MEP is an essential resource for small and medium manufacturers 
nationwide. With centers in all 50 States, as well as Puerto Rico, its 
reach is unmatched and its experience in counseling manufacturers is 
unrivaled. It is my hope that my colleagues will support this 
legislation as a direct way to bolster an industry that is 
indispensable to our Nation's economy health.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. Alexander):
  S. 696. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to 
include a definition of fill material; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today the Obama administration is taking 
an important first step in ending mountaintop mining, one of the most 
environmentally destructive practices currently in use in this country. 
More than 1 million acres of Appalachia have already been destroyed. An 
estimated 1,200 miles of headwater streams have been buried under tons 
of mining wastes. Over 500 mountains have been permanently scarred. 
Homes have been ruined and drinking water supplies contaminated. It is 
time to end this especially destructive method of coal mining.
  By stopping the issuance of some of the most destructive permits, 
today the administration is sending the right signals that the days of 
mountaintop mining are being relegated to the dust bin of the past, 
where they belong.
  Today, Senator Lamar Alexander and I are introducing bipartisan 
legislation that will go one step further. Our bill, the Appalachia 
Restoration Act, will make clear that mining wastes cannot be dumped 
into our streams, smothering them and sending plumes of toxic run-off 
into groundwater systems. This Cardin-Alexander legislation amends the 
Clean Water Act, specifically preventing the so-called ``excess spoil'' 
of mining wastes from entering our streams and rivers. This simple 
legislation will restore the Clean Water Act to its original purpose. 
In doing so, it will stop the wholesale destruction of some of 
America's most beautiful and ecologically significant regions.
  Mountaintop mining produces less than five percent of the coal mined 
in the United States. This bill does not ban other methods of coal 
mining. Instead, it is narrowly tailored to stop a practice that has 
earned the condemnation of communities across Appalachia as well as 
citizens across the rest of the country.
  I applaud the Obama administration for the steps it is taking today, 
and Senator Alexander and I look forward to working with the 
Administration to pass the Cardin-Alexander Appalachia Restoration Act 
later this year.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 696

         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 ``Appalachia Restoration 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FILL MATERIAL.

         Section 502 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1362) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
         ``(26) Fill material.--
         ``(A) In general.--The term `fill material' means any 
     pollutant that--
         ``(i) replaces a portion of the waters of the United 
     States with dry land; or
         ``(ii) modifies the bottom elevation of a body of water 
     for any purpose.
         ``(B) Exclusions.--The term `fill material' does not 
     include--
         ``(i) the disposal of excess spoil material (as described 
     in section 515(b)(22) of the Surface Mining Control and 
     Reclamation Act (30 U.S.C. 1265(b)(22))) in waters of the 
     United States; or
         ``(ii) trash or garbage.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Graham, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 698. A bill to ensure the provision of high-quality health care 
coverage for uninsured individuals through State health care coverage 
pilot projects that expand coverage and access and improve quality and 
efficiency

[[Page S3790]]

in the health care system; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, there is a crisis facing our country, a 
crisis that directly affects the lives of almost 50 million people in 
the U.S., and that indirectly affects many more. The crisis is the lack 
of universal health insurance in America, and its effects are rippling 
through our families, our communities, and our economy. It is the 
number one issue that I hear about in Wisconsin, and it is the number 
one issue for many Americans. Nevertheless, for too long, Congress has 
been locked in a stalemate when it comes to health reform, refusing to 
move forward on this life-threatening problem because of party politics 
and special interests. That is why, for the past few Congresses, I have 
introduced with the Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, the 
State-Based Health Care Reform Act.
  Senator Graham and I are from opposite ends of the political 
spectrum, we are from different areas of the country, and we have 
different views on health care. But we agree that something needs to be 
done about health care in our country. Every day, all over our nation, 
Americans suffer from medical conditions that cause them pain and even 
change the way they lead their lives. Every one of us has either 
experienced this personally or through a family member suffering from 
cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, genetic disorders, mental illness or 
some other condition. The disease takes its toll on both individuals 
and families, as trips to the hospital for treatments such as 
chemotherapy test the strength of the person and the family affected. 
This is an incredibly difficult situation for anyone. But for the 
uninsured and underinsured, the suffering goes beyond physical 
discomfort. These Americans bear the additional burden of wondering 
where the next dollar for their health care bills will come from; 
worries of going into debt; worries of going bankrupt because of health 
care needs. When illness strikes families, the last thing they should 
have to think about is money, but for many in our country, this is a 
persistent burden that causes additional stress and hopelessness when 
they are ill.
  It is difficult to do justice to the magnitude of the uninsurance 
problem, but I want to share a few astounding statistics. The need for 
health care reform has reached crisis proportions in America, with over 
46 million Americans uninsured. As a result of our current economic 
crisis, that number is climbing by the day. In December of 2008 and 
January of 2009, it is estimated that 14,000 Americans lost their 
access to health care each day; in Wisconsin, 230 people each day lost 
access to care during these 2 months. The cost of providing care to the 
uninsured weighs heavily on the U.S. economy. According to research 
done by the journal Health Affairs, the uninsured received 
approximately $56,000,000,000 in uncompensated care in 2008. Government 
programs finance about 75 percent of uncompensated care. The cost of 
the uninsured weighs heavily on our collective conscience, as well. In 
my home State of Wisconsin alone, it is estimated that 250 
Wisconsinites, or 5 people each week, died in 2006 because they did not 
have health insurance.

  The U.S. is the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee 
health care for its citizens. In other countries, if someone is sick, 
they get proper care regardless of ability to pay. In our country, that 
is not the case. It is unacceptable for a nation as great as America to 
not provide good health care for all our citizens. We are failing those 
in need. We are failing the hard-working family that cannot afford the 
insurance offered to them. We are failing the uninsured children whose 
parents do not have any access to insurance. We are failing low-income 
Americans and middle-income Americans alike. This is not right. We can 
do better.
  Even for those Americans who currently have health insurance through 
their employer, the risk of becoming uninsured is very real. Large 
businesses are finding themselves less competitive in the global market 
because of skyrocketing health care costs. Small businesses are finding 
it difficult to offer insurance to employees while staying competitive 
in their own communities. Our health care system has failed to keep 
costs in check, and there is simply no way we can expect businesses to 
keep up. More and more, employers are forced to increase employee cost-
sharing or to offer sub-par benefits, or no benefits at all. Employers 
cannot be the sole provider of health care when these costs are rising 
faster than inflation.
  I travel to each of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year to hold 
townhall meetings. Almost every year, the number one issue raised at 
these listening sessions is the same--health care. The failure of our 
health care system brings people to these meetings in droves. These 
people used to think Government involvement was a terrible idea, but 
not anymore. Now they come armed with their frustration, their anger, 
and their desperation, and they tell me that their businesses and their 
lives are being destroyed by health care costs, and they want the 
Government to step in.
  I am pleased to be joined by Senator Graham in introducing the State-
Based Health Care Reform Act. In short, this bill establishes a pilot 
project to provide States with the resources needed to implement 
universal health care reform. The bill does not dictate what kind of 
reform the States should implement, it just provides an incentive for 
action, provided States meet certain minimum coverage and low-income 
requirements.
  Even though Senator Graham and I support different methods of health 
care reform, we both agree that this legislation presents a viable 
solution to the logjam preventing reform. It may well be that, with a 
new President and a new Congress, that logjam is already broken. I hope 
that is the case, as I have long said that a single-payer health care 
system is what I prefer for our country. I also recognize that there 
are strong obstacles to enacting real reform, and that we may need the 
support of members of Congress with different views on this topic. 
Senator Graham would like to see health care privatized and see a base, 
catastrophic coverage offered to everyone. Despite our disagreements 
about the form that health care reform should take, we agree on this 
legislation.

  With the election of Barack Obama, Americans have a real opportunity 
to reform our health care system. I look forward to consideration of 
health care reform this Congress, and I do not intend to push this bill 
as an alternative to broader efforts. But I do think our proposal may 
help provide ideas about how to bring together Democrats and 
Republicans on this issue.
  Under our proposal, States can be creative in the State resources 
they use to expand health care coverage. For example, a State can use 
personal or employer mandates for coverage, use State tax incentives, 
create a single-payer system or even join with neighboring States to 
offer a regional health care plan. The proposals are subject only to 
the approval of the newly created Health Care Coverage Task Force, 
which will be composed of health care experts, consumers, and 
representatives from groups affected by health care reform. This Task 
Force will be responsible for choosing viable State projects and 
ensuring that the projects are effective. The Task Force will also help 
the States develop projects, and will continue a dialogue with the 
States in order to facilitate a good relationship between the State and 
Federal Governments.
  The Task Force is also charged with making sure that the State plans 
meet certain minimal requirements. First, the State plans must include 
specific target dates for decreasing the number of uninsured, and must 
also identify a set of minimum benefits for every covered individual. 
These benefits must be comparable to health insurance offered to 
Federal employees. Second, the State plans must include a mechanism to 
guarantee that the insurance is affordable. Americans should not go 
broke trying to keep healthy, and health care reform should ensure that 
individual costs are manageable. The State-Based Health Care Reform Act 
bases affordability on income.
  Another provision in this legislation requires that the States 
contribute to paying for their new health care programs. The Federal 
Government will provide matching funds based on enhanced FMAP--the same 
standard used for SCHIP--and will then provide an additional 5 percent. 
States that can

[[Page S3791]]

afford to provide more are encouraged to, but the matching requirement 
will ensure the financial viability of the bill and State buy-in. Other 
than these requirements, the States largely have flexibility to design 
a plan that works best for their respective residents. The 
possibilities for reform are wide open.
  One of the main criticisms of Federal Government spending on health 
care is that it is expensive and increases the deficit. My legislation 
is fully offset, ensuring that it will not increase the deficit. The 
bill does not avoid making the tough budget choices that need to be 
made if we are going to pay for health care reform.
  We need a solution for a broken system where millions are uninsured, 
and where businesses and Americans are struggling under the burden of 
health care costs.
  It has been over 10 years since the last serious debate over health 
care reform was killed by special interests and the soft money 
contributions they used to corrupt the legislative process. The 
legislative landscape is now much different. Soft money can no longer 
be used to set the agenda, and businesses and workers are crying out as 
never before for Congress to do something about the country's health 
care crisis.
  We are fortunate to live in a country that has been abundantly 
blessed with democracy and wealth, and yet there are those in our 
society whose daily health struggles overshadow these blessings. That 
is an injustice, but it is one we can and must address. Dr. Martin 
Luther King, Jr., said, ``Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in 
health care is the most shocking and inhumane.'' It is long past time 
for Congress to heed these words and end this terrible inequality.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Brown and Ms. Collins):
  S. 700. A bill to amend title II of the Social Security Act to phase 
out the 24-month waiting period for disabled individuals to become 
eligible for Medicare benefits, to eliminate the waiting period for 
individuals with life-threatening conditions, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleagues, 
Senators Brown and Collins, to introduce bipartisan legislation 
entitled Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2009. 
This legislation would phase out the current 2-year waiting period that 
people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social 
Security Disability Insurance, SSDI. In the interim or as the waiting 
period is being phased out, the bill would also create a process by 
which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people 
with life-threatening illnesses.
  When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant 
disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According 
to an April 2007 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated 
that over 1.5 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting 
period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of 
their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low 
incomes, and limited access to health insurance.'' Nearly 39 percent of 
these individuals do not have health insurance coverage for some point 
during the waiting period and 26 percent have no health insurance 
during this period.
  The stated reason at the time was to limit the fiscal cost of the 
provision. However, I would assert that there is no reason, be it 
fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than 2 years 
after becoming severely disabled before we provide them access to much 
needed health care.
  In fact, it is important to note that there really are actually three 
waiting periods that are imposed upon people seeking to qualify for 
SSDI. First, there is the disability determination process through the 
Social Security Administration, which often takes many months or even 
longer than a year in some cases. Second, once a worker has been 
certified as having a severe or permanent disability, they must wait an 
additional five months before receiving their first SSDI check. And 
third, after receiving that first SSDI check, there is the 2-year 
period that people must wait before their Medicare coverage begins.
  What happens to the health and well-being of people waiting more than 
2\1/2\ years before they finally receive critically needed Medicare 
coverage? According to Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, 
which has conducted several important studies on the issue, 
``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad 
range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate 
medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2-year wait 
would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.''
  Again, we are talking about individuals that have been determined to 
be unable to engage in any ``substantial, gainful activity'' because of 
either a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in 
death or to continue for at least 12 months. These are people that, by 
definition, are in more need of health coverage than anybody else in 
our society. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire.
  The majority of people who become disabled were, before their 
disability, working full-time jobs and paying into Medicare like all 
other employed Americans. At the moment these men and women need 
coverage the most, just when they have lost their health, their jobs, 
their income, and their health insurance, Federal law requires them to 
wait 2 full years to become eligible for Medicare. Many of these 
individuals are needlessly forced to accumulate tens-of-thousands of 
dollars in healthcare debt or compromise their health due to forgone 
medical treatment. Many individuals are forced to sell their homes or 
go bankrupt. Even more tragically, more than 16,000 disabled 
beneficiaries annually, about 4 percent of beneficiaries, do not make 
it through the waiting period. They die before their Medicare coverage 
ever begins.
  Removing the waiting period is well worth the expense. According to 
the Commonwealth Fund, analyses have shown providing men and women with 
Medicare at the time that Social Security certifies them as disabled 
would cost $8.7 billion annually. This cost would be partially offset 
by $4.3 billion in reduced Medicaid spending, which many individuals 
require during the waiting period. In addition, untold expenses borne 
by the individuals involved could be avoided, as well as the costs of 
charity care on which many depend. Moreover, there may be additional 
savings to the Medicare program itself, which often has to bear the 
expense of addressing the damage done during the waiting period. During 
this time, deferred health care can worsen conditions, creating 
additional health problems and higher costs.
  Further exacerbating the situation, some beneficiaries have had the 
unfortunate fate of having received SSI and Medicaid coverage, applied 
for SSDI, and then lost their Medicaid coverage because they were not 
aware the change in income when they received SSDI would push them over 
the financial limits for Medicaid. In such a case, and let me emphasize 
this point, the Government is effectively taking their health care 
coverage away because they are so severely disabled.
  Therefore, for some in the waiting period, their battle is often as 
much with the Government as it is with their medical condition, 
disease, or disability.
  Nobody could possibly think this makes any sense.
  As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with 
disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law 
effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, 
or death. . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in 
life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not 
just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.''
  Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly 
increase Medicare costs, it is important to note that there will be 
some decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both 
Federal and State governments, often provides coverage for a subset of 
disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain 
income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the 
poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New 
Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals 
and $3,000 for couples.

[[Page S3792]]

  Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little 
sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their 
health providers associated with that plan, move on to Medicaid, often 
have a different set of providers, then switch to Medicare and yet 
another set of providers. The cost, both financial and personal, of not 
providing access to care or poorly coordinated care services for these 
seriously ill people during the waiting period may be greater in many 
cases than providing health coverage.
  Finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk-pools 
would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the Commonwealth 
Fund has noted, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on 
coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, 
eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers 
who provide this coverage.''
  To address concerns about costs and immediate impact on the Medicare 
program, the legislation phases out the waiting period over a 10-year 
period. In the interim, the legislation would create a process by which 
others with life-threatening illnesses could also get an exception to 
the waiting period. Congress has previously extended such an exception 
to the waiting period to individuals with amyotrophic lateral 
sclerosis, ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for hospice 
services. The ALS exception passed the Congress in December 2000 and 
went into effect July 1, 2001. Thus, the legislation would extend the 
exception to all people with life-threatening illnesses in the waiting 
period.
  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. 700

         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 ``Ending 
     the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2009''.
         (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Phase-out of waiting period for medicare disability benefits.
Sec. 3. Elimination of waiting period for individuals with life-
              threatening conditions.
Sec. 4. Institute of Medicine study and report on delay and prevention 
              of disability conditions.

     SEC. 2. PHASE-OUT OF WAITING PERIOD FOR MEDICARE DISABILITY 
                   BENEFITS.

         (a) In General.--Section 226(b) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 426(b)) is amended--
         (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by striking ``, and has for 24 
     calendar months been entitled to,'' and inserting ``, and for 
     the waiting period (as defined in subsection (k)) has been 
     entitled to,'';
         (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``, and has been for 
     not less than 24 months,'' and inserting ``, and has been for 
     the waiting period (as defined in subsection (k)),'';
         (3) in paragraph (2)(C)(ii), by striking ``, including 
     the requirement that he has been entitled to the specified 
     benefits for 24 months,'' and inserting ``, including the 
     requirement that the individual has been entitled to the 
     specified benefits for the waiting period (as defined in 
     subsection (k)),''; and
         (4) in the flush matter following paragraph 
     (2)(C)(ii)(II)--
         (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``for each month 
     beginning with the later of (I) July 1973 or (II) the twenty-
     fifth month of his entitlement or status as a qualified 
     railroad retirement beneficiary described in paragraph (2), 
     and'' and inserting ``for each month beginning after the 
     waiting period (as so defined) for which the individual 
     satisfies paragraph (2) and'';
         (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``the `twenty-
     fifth month of his entitlement' refers to the first month 
     after the twenty-fourth month of entitlement to specified 
     benefits referred to in paragraph (2)(C) and''; and
         (C) in the third sentence, by striking ``, but not in 
     excess of 78 such months''.
         (b) Schedule for Phase-Out of Waiting Period.--Section 
     226 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
         ``(k) For purposes of subsection (b) (and for purposes of 
     section 1837(g)(1) of this Act and section 7(d)(2)(ii) of the 
     Railroad Retirement Act of 1974), the term `waiting period' 
     means--
         ``(1) for 2010, 18 months;
         ``(2) for 2011, 16 months;
         ``(3) for 2012, 14 months;
         ``(4) for 2013, 12 months;
         ``(5) for 2014, 10 months;
         ``(6) for 2015, 8 months;
         ``(7) for 2016, 6 months;
         ``(8) for 2017, 4 months;
         ``(9) for 2018, 2 months; and
         ``(10) for 2019 and each subsequent year, 0 months.''.
         (c) Conforming Amendments.--
         (1) Sunset.--Effective January 1, 2019, subsection (f) of 
     section 226 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 426) is 
     repealed.
         (2) Medicare description.--Section 1811(2) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395c(2)) is amended by striking ``entitled for 
     not less than 24 months'' and inserting ``entitled for the 
     waiting period (as defined in section 226(k))''.
         (3) Medicare coverage.--Section 1837(g)(1) of such Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395p(g)(1)) is amended by striking ``of the later 
     of (A) April 1973 or (B) the third month before the 25th 
     month of such entitlement'' and inserting ``of the third 
     month before the first month following the waiting period (as 
     defined in section 226(k)) applicable under section 226(b)''.
         (4) Railroad retirement system.--Section 7(d)(2)(ii) of 
     the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 
     231f(d)(2)(ii)) is amended--
         (A) by striking ``, for not less than 24 months'' and 
     inserting ``, for the waiting period (as defined in section 
     226(k) of the Social Security Act); and
         (B) by striking ``could have been entitled for 24 
     calendar months, and'' and inserting ``could have been 
     entitled for the waiting period (as defined is section 226(k) 
     of the Social Security Act), and''.
         (d) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (c)(1), the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     insurance benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security 
     Act with respect to items and services furnished in months 
     beginning at least 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act (but in no case earlier than January 1, 2010).

     SEC. 3. ELIMINATION OF WAITING PERIOD FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH 
                   LIFE-THREATENING CONDITIONS.

         (a) In General.--Section 226(h) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 426(h)) is amended--
         (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively;
         (2) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (1)), by inserting ``(1)'' after 
     ``(h)'';
         (3) in paragraph (1) (as designated by paragraph (2))--
         (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (1)), by inserting ``or any other 
     life-threatening condition'' after ``amyotrophic lateral 
     sclerosis (ALS)''; and
         (B) in subparagraph (B) (as redesignated by paragraph 
     (1)), by striking ``(rather than twenty-fifth month)''; and
         (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
         ``(2) For purposes of identifying life-threatening 
     conditions under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall compile a 
     list of conditions that are fatal without medical treatment. 
     In compiling such list, the Secretary shall--
         ``(A) consult with the Director of the National 
     Institutes of Health (including the Office of Rare Diseases), 
     the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, the Director of the National Science Foundation, 
     and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of 
     Sciences; and
         ``(B) annually review the compassionate allowances list 
     of conditions of the Social Security Administration.''.
         (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to insurance benefits under title XVIII of the 
     Social Security Act with respect to items and services 
     furnished in months beginning at least 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act (but in no case earlier than 
     January 1, 2010).

     SEC. 4. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE STUDY AND REPORT ON DELAY AND 
                   PREVENTION OF DISABILITY CONDITIONS.

         (a) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'') shall 
     request that the Institute of Medicine of the National 
     Academy of Sciences conduct a study on the range of 
     disability conditions that can be delayed or prevented if 
     individuals receive access to health care services and 
     coverage before the condition reaches disability levels.
         (b) Report.--Not later than the date that is 2 years 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing the results of the 
     Institute of Medicine study authorized under this section.
         (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $750,000 for the 
     period of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Whitehouse, and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 701 A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve access of Medicare beneficiaries to intravenous immune 
globulins (IVI); to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we move forward with comprehensive 
health reform we must also not ignore that some of our most vulnerable 
Medicare beneficiaries are subject to costly, bureaucratic red tape 
which is delaying

[[Page S3793]]

essential, life-saving treatments. Addressing this problem can both 
increase the quality of life for many patients and ease financial 
burdens for their medical providers.
  Between 6,000 and 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries have primary 
immunodeficiency diseases, PIDD, that require intravenous 
immunoglobulin, IVIG, treatment to maintain a healthy immune system.
  Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases, PIDD, are disorders in which part 
of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. 
Untreated PIDDs result in frequent life-threatening infections and 
debilitating illnesses. Even illnesses such as the common cold or the 
flu can be deadly for someone with PIDD.
  Because of advances in our medical understanding and treatment of 
primary immune deficiency diseases, individuals who in the past would 
not have survived childhood are now able to live nearly normal lives. 
While there is still no cure for PIDD, there are effective treatments 
available. Nearly 70 percent of primary immune deficient patients use 
intravenous immunoglobulin, IVIG, to maintain their health.
  Immunoglobulin is a naturally occurring collection of highly 
specialized proteins, known as antibodies, which strengthen the body's 
immune response. It is derived from human plasma donations and is 
administered intravenously to the patient every three to four weeks.
  Currently, Medicare beneficiaries needing IVIG treatments are 
experiencing access problems. This is an unintended result of the way 
Medicare has determined the payment for IVIG. In January 2005, the 
Medicare Modernization Act changed the way physicians and hospital 
outpatient departments were paid under Medicare. The law reduced IVIG 
reimbursement rates so most physicians in outpatient settings could no 
longer afford to treat Medicare patients requiring IVIG. Access to home 
based infusion therapy is limited since Medicare currently pays for the 
cost of IVIG, but not for the nursing services or supplies required for 
infusion.
  As a result, patients are experiencing delays in receiving 
critically-needed treatment and are being shifted to more expensive 
care settings such as inpatient hospitals. In April 2007, the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector 
General, OIG, reported that Medicare reimbursement for IVIG was 
inadequate to cover the cost many providers must pay for the product. 
In fact, the OIG found that 44 percent of hospitals and 41 percent of 
physicians were unable to purchase IVIG at the Medicare reimbursement 
rate during the 3rd quarter of 2006. The previous quarter was even 
worse--77.2 percent of hospitals and 96.5 percent of physicians were 
unable to purchase IVIG at the Medicare reimbursement rate.
  We have an opportunity to fix this very real problem with a 
compassionate and common sense solution. I believe we can improve the 
quality of life for PIDD patients and cut inpatient expenses by 
improving reimbursement procedures for IVIG treatments for physicians 
and outpatient facilities and allowing for home treatments and coverage 
for related services.
  That is why, today, I am introducing the Medicare IVIG Access Act, 
with Senators Alexander, Wyden, Whitehouse, and Brownback, to authorize 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to update the payment for 
IVIG, based on new or existing data, and to provide coverage for 
related items and services currently excluded from the existing 
Medicare home infusion therapy benefit. This bill is endorsed by 
several national organizations from the patient and physician 
communities, including the Immune Deficiency Foundation, GBS/CIDP 
Foundation International, the Jeffrey Modell Foundation, the Clinical 
Immunology Society, and the National Patient Advocate Foundation.
  I hope all my colleagues can support this legislation to help 
patients, physicians, caretakers, researchers, and plasma donors.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Ensign, Ms. Collins, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Graham):
  S. 702. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 
long-term care insurance to be offered under cafeteria plans and 
flexible spending arrangements and to provide additional consumer 
protections for long-term care insurance; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, at 2:30 today, the Senate Finance 
Committee, Subcommittee on Health Care, held a hearing entitled The 
Role of Long-Term Care in Health Reform. In conjunction with the 
Subcommittee hearing, my colleagues Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, 
Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and I wanted to take the opportunity to 
introduce the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security Act of 2009.
  Our Nation is graying. Research shows that the elderly population 
will nearly double by 2030. By 2050, the population of those aged 85 
and older will have grown by more than 300 percent. Research also shows 
that the average age at which individuals need long-term care services, 
such as home health care or a private room at a nursing home, is 75. 
Currently, the average annual cost for a private room at a nursing home 
is more than $75,000. This cost is expected to be in excess of $140,000 
by 2030.
  Based on these facts, we can see that our Nation needs to prepare its 
citizens for the challenges they may face in old-age. One way to 
prepare for these challenges is by encouraging more Americans to obtain 
long-term care insurance coverage. To date, only 10 percent of seniors 
have long-term care insurance policies, and only 7 percent of all 
private-sector employees are offered long-term care insurance as a 
voluntary benefit.
  Under current law, employees may pay for certain health-related 
benefits, which may include health insurance premiums, co-pays, and 
disability or life insurance, on a pre-tax basis under cafeteria plans 
and flexible spending arrangements, FSAs. Essentially, an employee may 
elect to reduce his or her annual salary to pay for these benefits, and 
the employee does not pay taxes on the amounts used to pay these costs. 
Employees, however, are explicitly prohibited from paying for the cost 
of long-term care insurance coverage tax-free.
  Our bill would allow employers, for the first time, to offer 
qualified long-term care insurance to employees under FSAs and 
cafeteria plans. This means employees would be permitted to pay for 
qualified long-term care insurance premiums on a tax-free basis. This 
would make it easier for employees to purchase long-term care 
insurance, which many find unaffordable. This should also encourage 
younger individuals to purchase long-term care insurance. The younger 
the person is at the time the long-care insurance contract is 
purchased, the lower the insurance premium.
  An aging Nation has no time to waste in preparing for long-term care, 
and the need to help people afford long-term care is more pressing than 
ever. I look forward to working with Senators Lincoln, Snowe, Ensign, 
Collins, Klobuchar, Graham and all of our Senate colleagues toward 
enacting the Long-Term Care Affordability and Security 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. 702

       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 ``Long-Term Care Affordability 
     and Security Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF PREMIUMS ON QUALIFIED LONG-TERM CARE 
                   INSURANCE CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Cafeteria plans.--The last sentence of section 125(f) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining qualified 
     benefits) is amended by inserting before the period at the 
     end ``; except that such term shall include the payment of 
     premiums for any qualified long-term care insurance contract 
     (as defined in section 7702B) to the extent the amount of 
     such payment does not exceed the eligible long-term care 
     premiums (as defined in section 213(d)(10)) for such 
     contract''.
       (2) Flexible spending arrangements.--Section 106 of such 
     Code (relating to contributions by an employer to accident 
     and health plans) is amended by striking subsection (c) and 
     redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections (c) and 
     (d), respectively.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--

[[Page S3794]]

       (1) Section 6041 of such Code is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Flexible Spending Arrangement Defined.--For purposes 
     of this section, a flexible spending arrangement is a benefit 
     program which provides employees with coverage under which--
       ``(1) specified incurred expenses may be reimbursed 
     (subject to reimbursement maximums and other reasonable 
     conditions), and
       ``(2) the maximum amount of reimbursement which is 
     reasonably available to a participant for such coverage is 
     less than 500 percent of the value of such coverage.

     In the case of an insured plan, the maximum amount reasonably 
     available shall be determined on the basis of the underlying 
     coverage.''.
       (2) The following sections of such Code are each amended by 
     striking ``section 106(d)'' and inserting ``section 106(c)'': 
     sections 223(b)(4)(B), 223(d)(4)(C), 223(f)(3)(B), 
     3231(e)(11), 3306(b)(18), 3401(a)(22), 4973(g)(1), and 
     4973(g)(2)(B)(i).
       (3) Section 6041(f)(1) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``(as defined in section 106(c)(2))''.
       (4) Section 26(b)(2)(S) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``106(e)(3)(A)(ii)'' and inserting ``106(d)(3)(A)(ii)''.
       (5) Section 223(c)(1)(B)(iii)(II) of such Code is amended 
     by striking ``section 106(e)'' and inserting ``section 
     106(d)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2008.

     SEC. 3. ADDITIONAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS FOR LONG-TERM CARE 
                   INSURANCE.

       (a) Additional Protections Applicable to Long-Term Care 
     Insurance.--Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 7702B(g)(2) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     requirements of model regulation and Act) are amended to read 
     as follows:
       ``(A) In general.--The requirements of this paragraph are 
     met with respect to any contract if such contract meets--
       ``(i) Model regulation.--The following requirements of the 
     model regulation:

       ``(I) Section 6A (relating to guaranteed renewal or 
     noncancellability), other than paragraph (5) thereof, and the 
     requirements of section 6B of the model Act relating to such 
     section 6A.
       ``(II) Section 6B (relating to prohibitions on limitations 
     and exclusions) other than paragraph (7) thereof.
       ``(III) Section 6C (relating to extension of benefits).
       ``(IV) Section 6D (relating to continuation or conversion 
     of coverage).
       ``(V) Section 6E (relating to discontinuance and 
     replacement of policies).
       ``(VI) Section 7 (relating to unintentional lapse).
       ``(VII) Section 8 (relating to disclosure), other than 
     sections 8F, 8G, 8H, and 8I thereof.
       ``(VIII) Section 11 (relating to prohibitions against post-
     claims underwriting).
       ``(IX) Section 12 (relating to minimum standards).
       ``(X) Section 13 (relating to requirement to offer 
     inflation protection).
       ``(XI) Section 25 (relating to prohibition against 
     preexisting conditions and probationary periods in 
     replacement policies or certificates).
       ``(XII) The provisions of section 28 relating to contingent 
     nonforfeiture benefits, if the policyholder declines the 
     offer of a nonforfeiture provision described in paragraph (4) 
     of this subsection.

       ``(ii) Model act.--The following requirements of the model 
     Act:

       ``(I) Section 6C (relating to preexisting conditions).
       ``(II) Section 6D (relating to prior hospitalization).
       ``(III) The provisions of section 8 relating to contingent 
     nonforfeiture benefits, if the policyholder declines the 
     offer of a nonforfeiture provision described in paragraph (4) 
     of this subsection.

       ``(B) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph--
       ``(i) Model regulation.--The term `model regulation' means 
     the long-term care insurance model regulation promulgated by 
     the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (as 
     adopted as of December 2006).
       ``(ii) Model act.--The term `model Act' means the long-term 
     care insurance model Act promulgated by the National 
     Association of Insurance Commissioners (as adopted as of 
     December 2006).
       ``(iii) Coordination.--Any provision of the model 
     regulation or model Act listed under clause (i) or (ii) of 
     subparagraph (A) shall be treated as including any other 
     provision of such regulation or Act necessary to implement 
     the provision.
       ``(iv) Determination.--For purposes of this section and 
     section 4980C, the determination of whether any requirement 
     of the model regulation or the model Act has been met shall 
     be made by the Secretary.''.
       (b) Excise Tax.--Paragraph (1) of section 4980C(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to requirements of 
     model provisions) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) Requirements of model provisions.--
       ``(A) Model regulation.--The following requirements of the 
     model regulation must be met:
       ``(i) Section 9 (relating to required disclosure of rating 
     practices to consumer).
       ``(ii) Section 14 (relating to application forms and 
     replacement coverage).
       ``(iii) Section 15 (relating to reporting requirements).
       ``(iv) Section 22 (relating to filing requirements for 
     marketing).
       ``(v) Section 23 (relating to standards for marketing), 
     including inaccurate completion of medical histories, other 
     than paragraphs (1), (6), and (9) of section 23C.
       ``(vi) Section 24 (relating to suitability).
       ``(vii) Section 27 (relating to the right to reduce 
     coverage and lower premiums).
       ``(viii) Section 31 (relating to standard format outline of 
     coverage).
       ``(ix) Section 32 (relating to requirement to deliver 
     shopper's guide).

     The requirements referred to in clause (vi) shall not include 
     those portions of the personal worksheet described in 
     Appendix B relating to consumer protection requirements not 
     imposed by section 4980C or 7702B.
       ``(B) Model act.--The following requirements of the model 
     Act must be met:
       ``(i) Section 6F (relating to right to return).
       ``(ii) Section 6G (relating to outline of coverage).
       ``(iii) Section 6H (relating to requirements for 
     certificates under group plans).
       ``(iv) Section 6J (relating to policy summary).
       ``(v) Section 6K (relating to monthly reports on 
     accelerated death benefits).
       ``(vi) Section 7 (relating to incontestability period).
       ``(vii) Section 9 (relating to producer training 
     requirements).
       ``(C) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     terms `model regulation' and `model Act' have the meanings 
     given such terms by section 7702B(g)(2)(B).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to policies issued more than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Kaufman, and Mr. 
        Menendez):
  S. 705. A bill to reauthorize the programs of the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Foreign Relations.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to support the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2009. Along with Senators 
Lugar, Kaufman and Menendez, I ask for approval of the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2009, a bill to 
reauthorize a vital U.S. Government agency that has assisted U.S. 
businesses and promoted projects in support of our foreign policy 
interests since 1971. This legislation reauthorizes the Overseas 
Private Investment Corporation, OPIC, for 4 years.
  OPIC is an independent U.S. agency whose mission is to mobilize U.S. 
private sector investment in poorer countries to facilitate their 
economic and social development. It provides U.S. companies with 
financing--from large structured finance to small business loans, 
political risk insurance, and investment funds.
  OPIC operates at no net cost to taxpayers: OPIC charges market-based 
fees for its products and operates on a self-sustaining basis. Over its 
38-year history, OPIC projects have generated more than $72 billion in 
U.S. exports and supported more than 273,000 American jobs while 
supporting over $188 billion worth of investments that have helped 
developing countries generate almost $15 billion in host-government 
revenues leading to over 821,000 host-country jobs.
  OPIC's financing and political risk insurance help U.S. businesses, 
particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, to compete in 
emerging markets and meet the challenges of investing overseas when 
private sector support is not available. OPIC promotes U.S. best 
practices by requiring that projects adhere to international labor 
standards.
  OPIC also engages in critical foreign policy areas. It is 
implementing major projects in the Middle East, including Jordan, the 
West Bank, and Lebanon. In Africa, OPIC has established a new 
investment fund that will mobilize $1.6 billion of private investment 
in Africa towards health care, housing, telecommunications and small 
businesses. The agency also gives preferential consideration to 
projects supported by small businesses. It has even established a 
separate department to focus on small business financing. An 
overwhelming majority of projects supported by OPIC involved small 
business--87 percent in fiscal year 2006. This is up from 24 percent in 
fiscal year 1997.
  The bill incorporates several important aspects, including: 
strengthening the rights of workers overseas, and strengthening 
transparency requirements to ensure NGOs and other interested groups 
have sufficient notice and

[[Page S3795]]

information about potential OPIC-supported projects.
  We all are aware of the unfortunate history associated with 
extractive industry projects and developing countries. Our bill ensures 
that OPIC projects will conform to principles and standards developed 
by the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative. The transparency 
for extraction investments is a new subsection created by the bill to 
ensure that countries with extractive industry projects will put in 
place functioning systems to allow accurate accounting, regular 
independent audits and broader accountability. Ultimately, this will be 
an important tool for preventing fraud, bribery and corruption in host 
countries with extractive projects.
  This legislation will also ensure greater transparency for how the 
Corporation operates. It directs OPIC to provide more detailed 
information in advance about potential projects so NGOs and other 
groups can determine their impact. The bill ensures that NGOs and other 
interested groups will have adequate notice and information about 
potential OPIC-supported projects, prior to Board meeting votes on OPIC 
assistance.
  I would like to reiterate that OPIC is an important foreign policy 
tool that encourages U.S. private sector companies to invest in poorer 
countries and improve their economic and social development. I want to 
make sure OPIC can continue to do its good work, but I also want to 
ensure that OPIC adheres to the highest labor and environmental 
standards, incorporates stringent accountability measures towards 
extractive industry projects, and promotes a green investment agenda.
  In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to approve the Overseas Private 
Investment Corporation Reauthorization Act of 2009 and join in this 
effort.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
  S. 707. A bill to enhance the Federal Telework Program; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Telework Enhancement 
Act of 2009 to allow greater workplace flexibility for Federal workers 
and agencies. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by my good 
friend, Senator George Voinovich.
  Flexible work arrangements referred to generally as ``telework'' have 
emerged as an important part of Federal agencies' management tools and 
continuity of operations plans during emergencies, allowing employees 
to work from home or a remote location. As the Internet and 
technologies have advanced and become integrated into the modern work 
environment, opportunities for employees to securely and efficiently 
perform their official duties from a remote location also have 
expanded.
  Last Congress, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of 
Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of 
Columbia, I joined Ranking Member Voinovich in holding a hearing to 
assess telework policies and initiatives within the Federal Government. 
Witnesses testified to the benefits of increased telework opportunities 
within the Federal workforce, including lower vehicle emissions 
associated with commuting, better work-life balance, reduced overhead 
costs for agencies, and increased trust and communication between 
employees and their managers.
  Expanding telework options helps the Federal Government attract and 
retain talented employees. With a large portion of the Federal 
workforce eligible for retirement in the coming years, it is essential 
for agencies to develop management tools to enhance recruitment and 
retention. This bill would provide Federal agencies with an important 
tool to remain competitive in the modern workplace and would offer a 
flexible option for human capital management.
  Despite these benefits, witnesses also testified that many agencies 
hesitate to implement broad telework programs. The witnesses cite 
agency leadership and management resistance as the greatest barriers to 
the development of robust telework policies. Even the head of the 
Patent and Trademark Office acknowledged that without his persistent 
leadership and commitment to telework, the PTO would not have the 
beneficial program that it does today.
  In the past, Congress has approved provisions in appropriations bills 
to enhance telework opportunities within the Federal Government and 
encouraged agencies to implement comprehensive telework programs. 
However, Congress has not approved an authorization bill to make all 
Federal employees presumptively eligible to telework unless an 
employing agency expressly determined otherwise. Last Congress I 
offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 1000, a 
telework bill introduced by Senators Stevens and Landrieu. My amendment 
was adopted by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs and the amended bill was reported on the floor of the Senate.
  The Telework Enhancement Act of 2009 builds on those efforts by 
laying the groundwork for robust telework policies in each executive 
agency. The Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would work with 
agencies to provide guidance and consultation on telework policies and 
goals. A Telework Managing Officer, TMO, would also be created within 
each agency. The TMO's primary responsibilities would be to monitor and 
develop agency telework policies, and act as a resource for employees 
and managers on telework issues.
  This bill does more than provide guidelines for the development of 
robust telework policies; it prohibits discrimination against employees 
who chose to telework, guaranteeing those employees will not be 
disadvantaged in performance evaluations, pay, or benefits. This bill 
also holds agencies accountable by requiring the submission of telework 
data to OPM. OPM is then responsible for submitting an annual report to 
Congress, which summarizes the telework data and reports on the 
progress of each agency in achieving its telework goals.
  I am proud to join Senator Voinovich in introducing the Telework 
Enhancement Act of 2009. We must make sure agencies have the tools 
necessary to make the Federal Government an employer of choice in the 
twenty-first century; enhancing telework options will further that 
goal. 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. 707

       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 ``Telework Enhancement Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Employee.--The term ``employee'' has the meaning given 
     that term under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Executive agency.--Except as provided in section 7, the 
     term ``executive agency'' has the meaning given that term 
     under section 105 of title 5, United States Code.
       (3) Telework.--The term ``telework'' means a work 
     arrangement in which an employee performs officially assigned 
     duties at home or other worksites geographically convenient 
     to the residence of the employee.

     SEC. 3. EXECUTIVE AGENCIES TELEWORK REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Telework Eligibility.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the head of each executive 
     agency shall--
       (1) establish a policy under which eligible employees of 
     the agency may be authorized to telework;
       (2) determine the eligibility for all employees of the 
     agency to participate in telework; and
       (3) notify all employees of the agency of their eligibility 
     to telework.
       (b) Participation.--The policy described under subsection 
     (a) shall--
       (1) ensure that telework does not diminish employee 
     performance or agency operations;
       (2) require a written agreement that--
       (A) is entered into between an agency manager and an 
     employee authorized to telework, that outlines the specific 
     work arrangement that is agreed to; and
       (B) is mandatory in order for any employee to participate 
     in telework;
       (3) provide that an employee may not be authorized to 
     telework if the performance of that employee does not comply 
     with the terms of the written agreement between the agency 
     manager and that employee;
       (4) except in emergency situations as determined by the 
     head of an agency, not apply to any employee of the agency 
     whose official duties require on a daily basis (every work 
     day)--
       (A) direct handling of secure materials; or

[[Page S3796]]

       (B) on-site activity that cannot be handled remotely or at 
     an alternate worksite; and
       (5) be incorporated as part of the continuity of operations 
     plans of the agency in the event of an emergency.

     SEC. 4. TRAINING AND MONITORING.

       (a) In General.--The head of each executive agency shall 
     ensure that--
       (1) an interactive telework training program is provided 
     to--
       (A) employees eligible to participate in the telework 
     program of the agency; and
       (B) all managers of teleworkers;
       (2) except as provided under subsection (b), an employee 
     has successfully completed the interactive telework training 
     program before that employee enters into a written agreement 
     to telework described under section 3(b)(2);
       (3) no distinction is made between teleworkers and 
     nonteleworkers for purposes of--
       (A) periodic appraisals of job performance of employees;
       (B) training, rewarding, reassigning, promoting, reducing 
     in grade, retaining, and removing employees;
       (C) work requirements; or
       (D) other acts involving managerial discretion; and
       (4) when determining what constitutes diminished employee 
     performance, the agency shall consult the established 
     performance management guidelines of the Office of Personnel 
     Management.
       (b) Training Requirement Exemptions.--The head of an 
     executive agency may provide for an exemption from the 
     training requirements under subsection (a), if the head of 
     that agency determines that the training would be unnecessary 
     because the employee is already teleworking under a work 
     arrangement in effect before the date of enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 5. POLICY AND SUPPORT.

       (a) Agency Consultation With the Office of Personnel 
     Management.--Each executive agency shall consult with the 
     Office of Personnel Management in developing telework 
     policies.
       (b) Guidance and Consultation.--The Office of Personnel 
     Management shall--
       (1) provide policy and policy guidance for telework in the 
     areas of pay and leave, agency closure, performance 
     management, official worksite, recruitment and retention, and 
     accommodations for employees with disabilities;
       (2) assist each agency in establishing appropriate 
     qualitative and quantitative measures and teleworking goals; 
     and
       (3) consult with--
       (A) the Federal Emergency Management Agency on policy and 
     policy guidance for telework in the areas of continuation of 
     operations and long-term emergencies; and
       (B) the General Services Administration on policy and 
     policy guidance for telework in the areas of telework 
     centers, travel, technology, equipment, and dependent care.
       (c) Continuity of Operations Plans.--
       (1) Incorporation into continuity of operations plans.--
     Each executive agency shall incorporate telework into the 
     continuity of operations plan of that agency.
       (2) Continuity of operations plans supersede telework 
     policy.--During any period that an executive agency is 
     operating under a continuity of operations plan, that plan 
     shall supersede any telework policy.
       (d) Telework Website.--The Office of Personnel Management 
     shall--
       (1) maintain a central telework website; and
       (2) include on that website related--
       (A) telework links;
       (B) announcements;
       (C) guidance developed by the Office of Personnel 
     Management; and
       (D) guidance submitted by the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency, and the General Services Administration to the Office 
     of Personnel Management not later than 10 business days after 
     the date of submission.

     SEC. 6. TELEWORK MANAGING OFFICER.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Designation.--The head of each executive agency shall 
     designate an employee of the agency as the Telework Managing 
     Officer. The Telework Managing Officer shall be established 
     within the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer or a 
     comparable office with similar functions.
       (2) Telework coordinators.--
       (A) Appropriations act, 2004.--Section 627 of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 
     108-199; 118 Stat. 99) is amended by striking ``designate a 
     `Telework Coordinator' to be'' and inserting ``designate a 
     Telework Managing Officer to be''.
       (B) Appropriations act, 2005.--Section 622 of the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 
     108-447; 118 Stat. 2919) is amended by striking ``designate a 
     `Telework Coordinator' to be'' and inserting ``designate a 
     Telework Managing Officer to be''.
       (b) Duties.--The Telework Managing Officer shall--
       (1) be devoted to policy development and implementation 
     related to agency telework programs;
       (2) serve as--
       (A) an advisor for agency leadership, including the Chief 
     Human Capital Officer;
       (B) a resource for managers and employees;
       (C) a primary agency point of contact for the Office of 
     Personnel Management on telework matters; and
       (3) perform other duties as the applicable delegating 
     authority may assign.

     SEC. 7. REPORTS.

       (a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``executive 
     agency'' shall not include the Government Accountability 
     Office.
       (b) Reports by the Office of Personnel Management.--
       (1) Submission of reports.--Not later than 18 months after 
     the date of enactment of this Act and on an annual basis 
     thereafter, the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, in consultation with Chief Human Capital Officers 
     Council, shall--
       (A) submit a report addressing the telework programs of 
     each executive agency to--
       (i) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate; and
       (ii) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of 
     the House of Representatives; and
       (B) transmit a copy of the report to the Comptroller 
     General and the Office of Management and Budget.
       (2) Contents.--Each report submitted under this subsection 
     shall include--
       (A) the degree of participation by employees of each 
     executive agency in teleworking during the period covered by 
     the report, (and for each executive agency whose head is 
     referred to under section 5312 of title 5, United States 
     Code, the degree of participation in each bureau, division, 
     or other major administrative unit of that agency), 
     including--
       (i) the total number of employees in the agency;
       (ii) the number and percent of employees in the agency who 
     are eligible to telework; and
       (iii) the number and percent of eligible employees in the 
     agency who are teleworking--

       (I) 3 or more days per pay period;
       (II) 1 or 2 days per pay period;
       (III) once per month; and
       (IV) on an occasional, episodic, or short-term basis;

       (B) the method for gathering telework data in each agency;
       (C) if the total number of employees teleworking is 10 
     percent higher or lower than the previous year in any agency, 
     the reasons for the positive or negative variation;
       (D) the agency goal for increasing participation to the 
     extent practicable or necessary for the next reporting 
     period, as indicated by the percent of eligible employees 
     teleworking in each frequency category described under 
     subparagraph (A)(iii);
       (E) an explanation of whether or not the agency met the 
     goals for the last reporting period and, if not, what actions 
     are being taken to identify and eliminate barriers to 
     maximizing telework opportunities for the next reporting 
     period;
       (F) an assessment of the progress each agency has made in 
     meeting agency participation rate goals during the reporting 
     period, and other agency goals relating to telework, such as 
     the impact of telework on--
       (i) emergency readiness;
       (ii) energy use;
       (iii) recruitment and retention;
       (iv) performance;
       (v) productivity; and
       (vi) employee attitudes and opinions regarding telework; 
     and
       (G) the best practices in agency telework programs.
       (c) Comptroller General Reports.--
       (1) Report on government accountability office telework 
     program.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act and on an annual basis thereafter, the 
     Comptroller General shall submit a report addressing the 
     telework program of the Government Accountability Office to--
       (i) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate; and
       (ii) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of 
     the House of Representatives.
       (B) Contents.--Each report submitted by the Comptroller 
     General shall include the same information as required under 
     subsection (b) applicable to the Government Accountability 
     Office.
       (2) Report to congress on office of personnel management 
     report.--Not later than 6 months after the submission of the 
     first report to Congress required under subsection (b), the 
     Comptroller General shall review that report required under 
     subsection (b) and submit a report to Congress on the 
     progress each executive agency has made towards the goals 
     established under section 5(b)(2).
       (d) Chief Human Capital Officer Reports.--
       (1) In general.--Each year the Chief Human Capital Officer 
     of each executive agency, in consultation with the Telework 
     Managing Officer of that agency, shall submit a report to the 
     Chair and Vice Chair of the Chief Human Capital Officers 
     Council on agency management efforts to promote telework.
       (2) Review and inclusion of relevant information.--The 
     Chair and Vice Chair of the Chief Human Capital Officers 
     Council shall--
       (A) review the reports submitted under paragraph (1);
       (B) include relevant information from the submitted reports 
     in the annual report to Congress required under subsection 
     (b); and
       (C) use that relevant information for other purposes 
     related to the strategic management of human capital.

[[Page S3797]]

     SEC. 8. AUTHORITY FOR TELEWORK TRAVEL EXPENSES TEST PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, 
     is amended by inserting after section 5710 the following:

     ``Sec. 5711. Authority for telework travel expenses test 
       programs

       ``(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subchapter, under a test program which the Administrator of 
     General Services determines to be in the interest of the 
     Government and approves, an employing agency may pay through 
     the proper disbursing official any necessary travel expenses 
     in lieu of any payment otherwise authorized or required under 
     this subchapter for employees participating in a telework 
     program. An agency shall include in any request to the 
     Administrator for approval of such a test program an analysis 
     of the expected costs and benefits and a set of criteria for 
     evaluating the effectiveness of the program.
       ``(2) Any test program conducted under this section shall 
     be designed to enhance cost savings or other efficiencies 
     that accrue to the Government.
       ``(3) Under any test program, if an agency employee 
     voluntarily relocates from the pre-existing duty station of 
     that employee, the Administrator may authorize the employing 
     agency to establish a reasonable maximum number of occasional 
     visits to the pre-existing duty station before that employee 
     is eligible for payment of any accrued travel expenses by 
     that agency.
       ``(4) Nothing in this section is intended to limit the 
     authority of any agency to conduct test programs.
       ``(b) The Administrator shall transmit a copy of any test 
     program approved by the Administrator under this section, and 
     the rationale for approval, to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress at least 30 days before the effective date of the 
     program.
       ``(c)(1) An agency authorized to conduct a test program 
     under subsection (a) shall provide to the Administrator, the 
     Telework Managing Officer of that agency, and the appropriate 
     committees of Congress a report on the results of the program 
     not later than 3 months after completion of the program.
       ``(2) The results in a report described under paragraph (1) 
     may include--
       ``(A) the number of visits an employee makes to the pre-
     existing duty station of that employee;
       ``(B) the travel expenses paid by the agency;
       ``(C) the travel expenses paid by the employee; or
       ``(D) any other information the agency determines useful to 
     aid the Administrator, Telework Managing Officer, and 
     Congress in understanding the test program and the impact of 
     the program.
       ``(d) No more than 10 test programs under this section may 
     be conducted simultaneously.
       ``(e) The authority to conduct test programs under this 
     section shall expire 7 years after the date of the enactment 
     of the Telework Enhancement Act of 2009.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     sections for chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 5710 
     the following:

``5711. Authority for telework travel expenses test programs.''.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and 
partner on human capital issues, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, in 
introducing the Telework Enhancement Act of 2009.
  One of my top priorities as a Senator has been to transform the 
culture of the Federal workforce, something I conscientiously undertook 
with the city and State workforces as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor 
of Ohio. I know that investing in our workforce pays off.
  We have an aging workforce that has difficulty attracting young 
people to public service careers. The image of the public sector can be 
bureaucratic--an impression that too often discourages young, creative 
college graduates. We must be able to recruit the best candidates, 
provide training and professional development opportunities, and reward 
good performance.
  To compete as an employer of choice in the fast-paced 21st century 
knowledge economy and improve our competitiveness, we need to create an 
environment that supports those with the desire and commitment to 
serve. Just as other aspects of their lives have been informed by 
technology, we need to acknowledge that this next generation will have 
different expectations of what it means to go to work. The growth of 
Web 2.0 hand held devices makes it far more likely that working anytime 
from most anywhere will be the new norm.
  As I stated in my 2000 report to the President on the Crisis in Human 
Capital, Federal agencies should enable as many employees as possible 
to telecommute or participate in other types of flexible workplace 
programs. Not only would this make Federal service more attractive to 
many employees, especially parents of young children, it has the 
potential to reduce traffic congestion and pollution in large 
metropolitan areas. According to the Telework Exchange, the average 
round trip commute is 50 miles, and commuters spend an average of 264 
hours per year commuting. Looking at the Federal Government, if all 
Federal employees who are eligible to telework full time were to do so, 
the Federal workforce could realize $13.9 billion savings in commuting 
costs annually and eliminate 21.5 billion pounds of pollutants out of 
the environment each year. Though more difficult to quantify, but 
equally important, is the improved work/life balance which has a 
positive effect on employee morale. An additional reason that was made 
plain on September 11, 2001, is the need for a workforce that can be 
dispersed and decentralized so that essential functions can continue 
during an emergency.
  The legislation we introduce today helps ensure that executive 
agencies better integrate telework into their human capital planning, 
establishes a level playing field for employees who voluntarily elect 
to telework, and improves program accountability.
  According to the most recent OPM survey on Federal human capital, 
only 22 percent of employees when asked about work/life and family 
friendly benefits said that they were satisfied with current telework/
telecommuting opportunities. Another 37 percent responded that they had 
no basis to judge. Even though teleworking has increased since OPM 
began reporting in 2001, participation is far short of what it should 
be and what the Federal workforce needs if our government is to remain 
an employer of choice. While most Federal agencies have made progress, 
the overall number of teleworkers decreased by approximately 15,000 
employees between 2006 and 2007, according to the Office of Personnel 
Management. In addition, less than 8 percent of eligible Federal 
employees telework regularly.
  I urge my colleagues to join Senator Akaka and me in ensuring the 
Federal Government better integrates telework into its operational 
plans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. 
        Begich):
  S 708. A bill to express the policy of the United States regarding 
the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians, to provide a 
process for the reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government and the 
recognition by the United States of the Native Hawaiian government, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I, along with members of the Hawaii 
Congressional Delegation, introduce a modified version of the Native 
Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009. In order to address 
concerns that have been raised, a new section prohibiting gaming has 
been included. With the exception of this one section, the resulting 
Senate bill and House bill preserve the language of S. 381 and H.R. 
862, respectively; that were previously introduced on February 4, 2009. 
The legislation we introduce today is the legislation we will seek to 
move forward with toward enactment.
  I am not a proponent of gaming. Our legislation would not legalize 
gaming by Native Hawaiians or the Native Hawaiian government in the 
State of Hawaii, any other state, or the territories. I reiterate to my 
colleagues, as well as the people of this Nation that all forms of 
gambling are illegal in Hawaii and the Native Hawaiian government will 
be subject to all State and Federal laws. The legislation we introduce 
today with this added gaming prohibition provision simply clarifies our 
intent.
  Let me be clear for the record and for my colleagues that this bill 
is not about gaming. Rather it is about providing Federal recognition 
to Native Hawaiians so they may have the opportunity to enjoy the same 
government-to-government relationship with the U.S. provided to Alaska 
Natives and American Indians. The indigenous people of Hawaii, Native 
Hawaiians, have not been extended the Federal policy of self-governance 
and self-determination. The legislation provides parity and authorizes 
a process to federally recognize Native Hawaiians. The legislation is 
consistent with Federal law and maintains efforts by the U.S. 
Government and State of Hawaii to address

[[Page S3798]]

the unique needs of Native Hawaiians and empower them to perpetuate 
their culture, language, and traditions.
  The United States has committed itself to a process of reconciliation 
with the indigenous people of Hawaii. Recognizing and upholding this 
U.S. responsibility for Native Hawaiians, the legislation allows us to 
take the next necessary step in the reconciliation process. The 
legislation does three things. First, it authorizes an Office within 
the Department of Interior to serve as a liaison between Native 
Hawaiians and the U.S. Second, it forms an Interagency Task Force 
cochaired by the Departments of Interior and Justice and comprised of 
officials from Federal agencies administering programs and services 
impacting Native Hawaiians. Third, it authorizes the process for the 
reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government for the purposes of a 
federally recognized government-to-government relationship. Once the 
Native Hawaiian government is recognized, the bill establishes an 
inclusive democratic negotiations process representing both Native 
Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiians. There are many checks and balances 
in this process and any agreements reached during the negotiations 
process will require implementing legislation at the State and Federal 
levels.
  This legislation will go a long way to address issues present in my 
home State. It is clear there are longstanding and unresolved issues 
resulting from the 1893 U.S. overthrow of the kingdom of Hawaii. 
Progress to address these issues have been limited as there has been no 
government-to-government relationship to facilitate discussions or 
implement agreements. However, with the structured process in the bill 
the people of Hawaii will be empowered to come together, resolve these 
issues, and move proudly forward together as a State.
  The bill remains the product of the dedicated and mindful work of the 
five working groups that drafted the original bill that passed the U.S. 
House of Representatives in 2000. Individuals from the Native Hawaiian 
community, elected officials from the State of Hawaii, representatives 
from Federal agencies, Members of Congress, as well as leaders from 
Indian country and experts in constitutional law contributed to this 
bill. These working groups ensured that all parties that had expertise 
and would work to implement the bill had an opportunity to participate 
in the drafting process.
  Over the last 9 years there has been significant public input and 
congressional oversight. This bill benefits from the input received 
during the nine congressional hearings, including six joint House 
Natural Resources Committee and Senate Indian Affairs Committee 
hearings, five of which were held in Hawaii. The bill introduced today 
provides a constitutionally sound foundation for us to build upon. I 
encourage my colleagues to join Senator Inouye and me in enacting 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. 708

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

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Constitution vests Congress with the authority to 
     address the conditions of the indigenous, native people of 
     the United States.
       (2) Native Hawaiians, the native people of the Hawaiian 
     archipelago which is now part of the United States, are 
     indigenous, native people of the United States.
       (3) The United States has a special trust relationship to 
     promote the welfare of the native people of the United 
     States, including Native Hawaiians.
       (4) Under the treaty making power of the United States, 
     Congress exercised its constitutional authority to confirm a 
     treaty between the United States and the government that 
     represented the Hawaiian people, and from 1826 until 1893, 
     the United States recognized the independence of the Kingdom 
     of Hawaii, extended full diplomatic recognition to the 
     Hawaiian government, and entered into treaties and 
     conventions with the Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and 
     navigation in 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887.
       (5) Pursuant to the provisions of the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42), the United 
     States set aside 203,500 acres of land in the Federal 
     territory that later became the State of Hawaii to address 
     the conditions of Native Hawaiians.
       (6) By setting aside 203,500 acres of land for Native 
     Hawaiian homesteads and farms, the Act assists the Native 
     Hawaiian community in maintaining distinct native settlements 
     throughout the State of Hawaii.
       (7) Approximately 6,800 Native Hawaiian lessees and their 
     family members reside on Hawaiian Home Lands and 
     approximately 18,000 Native Hawaiians who are eligible to 
     reside on the Home Lands are on a waiting list to receive 
     assignments of land.
       (8) In 1959, as part of the compact admitting Hawaii into 
     the United States, Congress established the Ceded Lands Trust 
     for 5 purposes, 1 of which is the betterment of the 
     conditions of Native Hawaiians. Such trust consists of 
     approximately 1,800,000 acres of land, submerged lands, and 
     the revenues derived from such lands, the assets of which 
     have never been completely inventoried or segregated.
       (9) Throughout the years, Native Hawaiians have repeatedly 
     sought access to the Ceded Lands Trust and its resources and 
     revenues in order to establish and maintain native 
     settlements and distinct native communities throughout the 
     State.
       (10) The Hawaiian Home Lands and the Ceded Lands provide an 
     important foundation for the ability of the Native Hawaiian 
     community to maintain the practice of Native Hawaiian 
     culture, language, and traditions, and for the survival of 
     the Native Hawaiian people.
       (11) Native Hawaiians have maintained other distinctly 
     native areas in Hawaii.
       (12) On November 23, 1993, Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 
     1510) (commonly known as the Apology Resolution) was enacted 
     into law, extending an apology on behalf of the United States 
     to the Native people of Hawaii for the United States role in 
     the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii.
       (13) The Apology Resolution acknowledges that the overthrow 
     of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active 
     participation of agents and citizens of the United States and 
     further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never 
     directly relinquished their claims to their inherent 
     sovereignty as a people over their national lands to the 
     United States, either through their monarchy or through a 
     plebiscite or referendum.
       (14) The Apology Resolution expresses the commitment of 
     Congress and the President to acknowledge the ramifications 
     of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support 
     reconciliation efforts between the United States and Native 
     Hawaiians; and to have Congress and the President, through 
     the President's designated officials, consult with Native 
     Hawaiians on the reconciliation process as called for under 
     the Apology Resolution.
       (15) Despite the overthrow of the Hawaiian government, 
     Native Hawaiians have continued to maintain their separate 
     identity as a distinct native community through the formation 
     of cultural, social, and political institutions, and to give 
     expression to their rights as native people to self-
     determination and self-governance as evidenced through their 
     participation in the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.
       (16) Native Hawaiians also maintain a distinct Native 
     Hawaiian community through the provision of governmental 
     services to Native Hawaiians, including the provision of 
     health care services, educational programs, employment and 
     training programs, children's services, conservation 
     programs, fish and wildlife protection, agricultural 
     programs, native language immersion programs and native 
     language immersion schools from kindergarten through high 
     school, as well as college and master's degree programs in 
     native language immersion instruction, and traditional 
     justice programs, and by continuing their efforts to enhance 
     Native Hawaiian self-determination and local control.
       (17) Native Hawaiians are actively engaged in Native 
     Hawaiian cultural practices, traditional agricultural 
     methods, fishing and subsistence practices, maintenance of 
     cultural use areas and sacred sites, protection of burial 
     sites, and the exercise of their traditional rights to gather 
     medicinal plants and herbs, and food sources.
       (18) The Native Hawaiian people wish to preserve, develop, 
     and transmit to future Native Hawaiian generations their 
     ancestral lands and Native Hawaiian political and cultural 
     identity in accordance with their traditions, beliefs, 
     customs and practices, language, and social and political 
     institutions, and to achieve greater self-determination over 
     their own affairs.
       (19) This Act provides for a process within the framework 
     of Federal law for the Native Hawaiian people to exercise 
     their inherent rights as a distinct aboriginal, indigenous, 
     native community to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government 
     for the purpose of giving expression to their rights as 
     native people to self-determination and self-governance.
       (20) The United States has declared that--
       (A) the United States has a special responsibility for the 
     welfare of the native peoples of the United States, including 
     Native Hawaiians;
       (B) Congress has identified Native Hawaiians as a distinct 
     indigenous group within the scope of its Indian affairs 
     power, and has enacted dozens of statutes on their behalf 
     pursuant to its recognized trust responsibility; and
       (C) Congress has also delegated broad authority to 
     administer a portion of the Federal trust responsibility to 
     the State of Hawaii.

[[Page S3799]]

       (21) The United States has recognized and reaffirmed the 
     special trust relationship with the Native Hawaiian people 
     through--
       (A) the enactment of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide 
     for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', 
     approved March 18, 1959 (Public Law 86-3; 73 Stat. 4) by--
       (i) ceding to the State of Hawaii title to the public lands 
     formerly held by the United States, and mandating that those 
     lands be held in public trust for 5 purposes, one of which is 
     for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians; and
       (ii) transferring the United States responsibility for the 
     administration of the Hawaiian Home Lands to the State of 
     Hawaii, but retaining the authority to enforce the trust, 
     including the exclusive right of the United States to consent 
     to any actions affecting the lands which comprise the corpus 
     of the trust and any amendments to the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42) that are 
     enacted by the legislature of the State of Hawaii affecting 
     the beneficiaries under the Act.
       (22) The United States continually has recognized and 
     reaffirmed that--
       (A) Native Hawaiians have a cultural, historic, and land-
     based link to the aboriginal, native people who exercised 
     sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands;
       (B) Native Hawaiians have never relinquished their claims 
     to sovereignty or their sovereign lands;
       (C) the United States extends services to Native Hawaiians 
     because of their unique status as the aboriginal, native 
     people of a once sovereign nation with whom the United States 
     has a political and legal relationship; and
       (D) the special trust relationship of American Indians, 
     Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians to the United States 
     arises out of their status as aboriginal, indigenous, native 
     people of the United States.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Aboriginal, indigenous, native people.--The term 
     ``aboriginal, indigenous, native people'' means those people 
     whom Congress has recognized as the original inhabitants of 
     the lands and who exercised sovereignty prior to European 
     contact in the areas that later became part of the United 
     States.
       (2) Adult members.--The term ``adult members'' means those 
     Native Hawaiians who have attained the age of 18 at the time 
     the Secretary publishes the final roll, as provided in 
     section 7(a)(3) of this Act.
       (3) Apology resolution.--The term ``Apology Resolution'' 
     means Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510), a joint resolution 
     offering an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the 
     United States for the participation of agents of the United 
     States in the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of 
     Hawaii.
       (4) Ceded lands.--The term ``ceded lands'' means those 
     lands which were ceded to the United States by the Republic 
     of Hawaii under the Joint Resolution to provide for annexing 
     the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of July 7, 1898 (30 
     Stat. 750), and which were later transferred to the State of 
     Hawaii in the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the 
     admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union'' approved 
     March 18, 1959 (Public Law 86-3; 73 Stat. 4).
       (5) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the 
     commission established in section 7 of this Act to certify 
     that the adult members of the Native Hawaiian community 
     contained on the roll developed under that section meet the 
     definition of Native Hawaiian, as defined in paragraph 
     (7)(A).
       (6) Indigenous, native people.--The term ``indigenous, 
     native people'' means the lineal descendants of the 
     aboriginal, indigenous, native people of the United States.
       (7) Native hawaiian.--
       (A) Prior to the recognition by the United States of a 
     Native Hawaiian government under the authority of section 
     7(d)(2) of this Act, the term ``Native Hawaiian'' means the 
     indigenous, native people of Hawaii who are the lineal 
     descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who 
     resided in the islands that now comprise the State of Hawaii 
     on or before January 1, 1893, and who occupied and exercised 
     sovereignty in the Hawaiian archipelago, including the area 
     that now constitutes the State of Hawaii, and includes all 
     Native Hawaiians who were eligible in 1921 for the programs 
     authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 Stat. 
     108, chapter 42) and their lineal descendants.
       (B) Following the recognition by the United States of the 
     Native Hawaiian government under section 7(d)(2) of this Act, 
     the term ``Native Hawaiian'' shall have the meaning given to 
     such term in the organic governing documents of the Native 
     Hawaiian government.
       (8) Native hawaiian government.--The term ``Native Hawaiian 
     government'' means the citizens of the government of the 
     Native Hawaiian people that is recognized by the United 
     States under the authority of section 7(d)(2) of this Act.
       (9) Native hawaiian interim governing council.--The term 
     ``Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council'' means the 
     interim governing council that is organized under section 
     7(c) of this Act.
       (10) Roll.--The term ``roll'' means the roll that is 
     developed under the authority of section 7(a) of this Act.
       (11) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (12) Task force.--The term ``Task Force'' means the Native 
     Hawaiian Interagency Task Force established under the 
     authority of section 6 of this Act.

     SEC. 3. UNITED STATES POLICY AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Policy.--The United States reaffirms that--
       (1) Native Hawaiians are a unique and distinct aboriginal, 
     indigenous, native people, with whom the United States has a 
     political and legal relationship;
       (2) the United States has a special trust relationship to 
     promote the welfare of Native Hawaiians;
       (3) Congress possesses the authority under the Constitution 
     to enact legislation to address the conditions of Native 
     Hawaiians and has exercised this authority through the 
     enactment of--
       (A) the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, 
     chapter 42);
       (B) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the admission 
     of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', approved March 18, 
     1959 (Public Law 86-3; 73 Stat. 4); and
       (C) more than 150 other Federal laws addressing the 
     conditions of Native Hawaiians;
       (4) Native Hawaiians have--
       (A) an inherent right to autonomy in their internal 
     affairs;
       (B) an inherent right of self-determination and self-
     governance;
       (C) the right to reorganize a Native Hawaiian government; 
     and
       (D) the right to become economically self-sufficient; and
       (5) the United States shall continue to engage in a process 
     of reconciliation and political relations with the Native 
     Hawaiian people.
       (b) Purpose.--It is the intent of Congress that the purpose 
     of this Act is to provide a process for the reorganization of 
     a Native Hawaiian government and for the recognition by the 
     United States of the Native Hawaiian government for purposes 
     of continuing a government-to-government relationship.

     SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR NATIVE 
                   HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--There is established within the Office of 
     the Secretary the United States Office for Native Hawaiian 
     Affairs.
       (b) Duties of the Office.--The United States Office for 
     Native Hawaiian Affairs shall--
       (1) effectuate and coordinate the special trust 
     relationship between the Native Hawaiian people and the 
     United States through the Secretary, and with all other 
     Federal agencies;
       (2) upon the recognition of the Native Hawaiian government 
     by the United States as provided for in section 7(d)(2) of 
     this Act, effectuate and coordinate the special trust 
     relationship between the Native Hawaiian government and the 
     United States through the Secretary, and with all other 
     Federal agencies;
       (3) fully integrate the principle and practice of 
     meaningful, regular, and appropriate consultation with the 
     Native Hawaiian people by providing timely notice to, and 
     consulting with the Native Hawaiian people prior to taking 
     any actions that may affect traditional or current Native 
     Hawaiian practices and matters that may have the potential to 
     significantly or uniquely affect Native Hawaiian resources, 
     rights, or lands, and upon the recognition of the Native 
     Hawaiian government as provided for in section 7(d)(2) of 
     this Act, fully integrate the principle and practice of 
     meaningful, regular, and appropriate consultation with the 
     Native Hawaiian government by providing timely notice to, and 
     consulting with the Native Hawaiian people and the Native 
     Hawaiian government prior to taking any actions that may have 
     the potential to significantly affect Native Hawaiian 
     resources, rights, or lands;
       (4) consult with the Native Hawaiian Interagency Task 
     Force, other Federal agencies, and with relevant agencies of 
     the State of Hawaii on policies, practices, and proposed 
     actions affecting Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or 
     lands;
       (5) be responsible for the preparation and submittal to the 
     Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, and the Committee 
     on Resources of the House of Representatives of an annual 
     report detailing the activities of the Interagency Task Force 
     established under section 6 of this Act that are undertaken 
     with respect to the continuing process of reconciliation and 
     to effect meaningful consultation with the Native Hawaiian 
     people and the Native Hawaiian government and providing 
     recommendations for any necessary changes to existing Federal 
     statutes or regulations promulgated under the authority of 
     Federal law;
       (6) be responsible for continuing the process of 
     reconciliation with the Native Hawaiian people, and upon the 
     recognition of the Native Hawaiian government by the United 
     States as provided for in section 7(d)(2) of this Act, be 
     responsible for continuing the process of reconciliation with 
     the Native Hawaiian government; and
       (7) assist the Native Hawaiian people in facilitating a 
     process for self-determination, including but not limited to 
     the provision of technical assistance in the development of 
     the roll under section 7(a) of this Act, the organization of 
     the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council as provided for 
     in section 7(c) of this Act, and the recognition of the 
     Native Hawaiian government as provided for in section 7(d) of 
     this Act.

[[Page S3800]]

       (c) Authority.--The United States Office for Native 
     Hawaiian Affairs is authorized to enter into a contract with 
     or make grants for the purposes of the activities authorized 
     or addressed in section 7 of this Act for a period of 3 years 
     from the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REPRESENTATIVE.

       The Attorney General shall designate an appropriate 
     official within the Department of Justice to assist the 
     United States Office for Native Hawaiian Affairs in the 
     implementation and protection of the rights of Native 
     Hawaiians and their political, legal, and trust relationship 
     with the United States, and upon the recognition of the 
     Native Hawaiian government as provided for in section 7(d)(2) 
     of this Act, in the implementation and protection of the 
     rights of the Native Hawaiian government and its political, 
     legal, and trust relationship with the United States.

     SEC. 6. NATIVE HAWAIIAN INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established an interagency 
     task force to be known as the ``Native Hawaiian Interagency 
     Task Force''.
       (b) Composition.--The Task Force shall be composed of 
     officials, to be designated by the President, from--
       (1) each Federal agency that establishes or implements 
     policies that affect Native Hawaiians or whose actions may 
     significantly or uniquely impact on Native Hawaiian 
     resources, rights, or lands;
       (2) the United States Office for Native Hawaiian Affairs 
     established under section 4 of this Act; and
       (3) the Executive Office of the President.
       (c) Lead Agencies.--The Department of the Interior and the 
     Department of Justice shall serve as the lead agencies of the 
     Task Force, and meetings of the Task Force shall be convened 
     at the request of either of the lead agencies.
       (d) Co-Chairs.--The Task Force representative of the United 
     States Office for Native Hawaiian Affairs established under 
     the authority of section 4 of this Act and the Attorney 
     General's designee under the authority of section 5 of this 
     Act shall serve as co-chairs of the Task Force.
       (e) Duties.--The responsibilities of the Task Force shall 
     be--
       (1) the coordination of Federal policies that affect Native 
     Hawaiians or actions by any agency or agencies of the Federal 
     Government which may significantly or uniquely impact on 
     Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands;
       (2) to assure that each Federal agency develops a policy on 
     consultation with the Native Hawaiian people, and upon 
     recognition of the Native Hawaiian government by the United 
     States as provided in section 7(d)(2) of this Act, 
     consultation with the Native Hawaiian government; and
       (3) to assure the participation of each Federal agency in 
     the development of the report to Congress authorized in 
     section 4(b)(5) of this Act.

     SEC. 7. PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A ROLL FOR THE 
                   ORGANIZATION OF A NATIVE HAWAIIAN INTERIM 
                   GOVERNING COUNCIL, FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF A 
                   NATIVE HAWAIIAN INTERIM GOVERNING COUNCIL AND A 
                   NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT, AND FOR THE 
                   RECOGNITION OF THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT.

       (a) Roll.--
       (1) Preparation of roll.--The United States Office for 
     Native Hawaiian Affairs shall assist the adult members of the 
     Native Hawaiian community who wish to participate in the 
     reorganization of a Native Hawaiian government in preparing a 
     roll for the purpose of the organization of a Native Hawaiian 
     Interim Governing Council. The roll shall include the names 
     of the--
       (A) adult members of the Native Hawaiian community who wish 
     to become citizens of a Native Hawaiian government and who 
     are--
       (i) the lineal descendants of the aboriginal, indigenous, 
     native people who resided in the islands that now comprise 
     the State of Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893, and who 
     occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian 
     archipelago; or
       (ii) Native Hawaiians who were eligible in 1921 for the 
     programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42 
     Stat. 108, chapter 42) or their lineal descendants; and
       (B) the children of the adult members listed on the roll 
     prepared under this subsection.
       (2) Certification and submission.--
       (A) Commission.--
       (i) In general.--There is authorized to be established a 
     Commission to be composed of 9 members for the purpose of 
     certifying that the adult members of the Native Hawaiian 
     community on the roll meet the definition of Native Hawaiian, 
     as defined in section 2(7)(A) of this Act.
       (ii) Membership.--

       (I) Appointment.--The Secretary shall appoint the members 
     of the Commission in accordance with subclause (II). Any 
     vacancy on the Commission shall not affect its powers and 
     shall be filled in the same manner as the original 
     appointment.
       (II) Requirements.--The members of the Commission shall be 
     Native Hawaiian, as defined in section 2(7)(A) of this Act, 
     and shall have expertise in the certification of Native 
     Hawaiian ancestry.
       (III) Congressional submission of suggested candidates.--In 
     appointing members of the Commission, the Secretary may 
     choose such members from among--

       (aa) five suggested candidates submitted by the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate and the Minority Leader of the Senate 
     from a list of candidates provided to such leaders by the 
     Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs 
     of the Senate; and
       (bb) four suggested candidates submitted by the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives and the Minority Leader of the 
     House of Representatives from a list provided to the Speaker 
     and the Minority Leader by the Chairman and Ranking member of 
     the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives.
       (iii) Expenses.--Each member 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.
       (B) Certification.--The Commission shall certify that the 
     individuals listed on the roll developed under the authority 
     of this subsection are Native Hawaiians, as defined in 
     section 2(7)(A) of this Act.
       (3) Secretary.--
       (A) Certification.--The Secretary shall review the 
     Commission's certification of the membership roll and 
     determine whether it is consistent with applicable Federal 
     law, including the special trust relationship between the 
     United States and the indigenous, native people of the United 
     States.
       (B) Publication.--Upon making the determination authorized 
     in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall publish a final 
     roll.
       (C) Appeal.--
       (i) Establishment of mechanism.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to establish a mechanism for an appeal of the 
     Commission's determination as it concerns--

       (I) the exclusion of the name of a person who meets the 
     definition of Native Hawaiian, as defined in section 2(7)(A) 
     of this Act, from the roll; or
       (II) a challenge to the inclusion of the name of a person 
     on the roll on the grounds that the person does not meet the 
     definition of Native Hawaiian, as so defined.

       (ii) Publication; update.--The Secretary shall publish the 
     final roll while appeals are pending, and shall update the 
     final roll and the publication of the final roll upon the 
     final disposition of any appeal.
       (D) Failure to act.--If the Secretary fails to make the 
     certification authorized in subparagraph (A) within 90 days 
     of the date that the Commission submits the membership roll 
     to the Secretary, the certification shall be deemed to have 
     been made, and the Commission shall publish the final roll.
       (4) Effect of publication.--The publication of the final 
     roll shall serve as the basis for the eligibility of adult 
     members listed on the roll to participate in all referenda 
     and elections associated with the organization of a Native 
     Hawaiian Interim Governing Council and the Native Hawaiian 
     government.
       (b) Recognition of Rights.--The right of the Native 
     Hawaiian people to organize for their common welfare and to 
     adopt appropriate organic governing documents is hereby 
     recognized by the United States.
       (c) Organization of the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council.--
       (1) Organization.--The adult members listed on the roll 
     developed under the authority of subsection (a) are 
     authorized to--
       (A) develop criteria for candidates to be elected to serve 
     on the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council;
       (B) determine the structure of the Native Hawaiian Interim 
     Governing Council; and
       (C) elect members to the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council.
       (2) Election.--Upon the request of the adult members listed 
     on the roll developed under the authority of subsection (a), 
     the United States Office for Native Hawaiian Affairs may 
     assist the Native Hawaiian community in holding an election 
     by secret ballot (absentee and mail balloting permitted), to 
     elect the membership of the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council.
       (3) Powers.--
       (A) In general.--The Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council is authorized to represent those on the roll in the 
     implementation of this Act and shall have no powers other 
     than those given to it in accordance with this Act.
       (B) Funding.--The Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council 
     is authorized to enter into a contract or grant with any 
     Federal agency, including but not limited to, the United 
     States Office for Native Hawaiian Affairs within the 
     Department of the Interior and the Administration for Native 
     Americans within the Department of Health and Human Services, 
     to carry out the activities set forth in subparagraph (C).
       (C) Activities.--
       (i) In general.--The Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council is authorized to conduct a referendum of the adult 
     members listed on the roll developed under the authority of 
     subsection (a) for the purpose of determining (but not 
     limited to) the following:

       (I) The proposed elements of the organic governing 
     documents of a Native Hawaiian government.
       (II) The proposed powers and authorities to be exercised by 
     a Native Hawaiian government, as well as the proposed 
     privileges and immunities of a Native Hawaiian government.
       (III) The proposed civil rights and protection of such 
     rights of the citizens of a Native Hawaiian government and 
     all persons subject

[[Page S3801]]

     to the authority of a Native Hawaiian government.

       (ii) Development of organic governing documents.--Based 
     upon the referendum, the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council is authorized to develop proposed organic governing 
     documents for a Native Hawaiian government.
       (iii) Distribution.--The Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council is authorized to distribute to all adult members of 
     those listed on the roll, a copy of the proposed organic 
     governing documents, as drafted by the Native Hawaiian 
     Interim Governing Council, along with a brief impartial 
     description of the proposed organic governing documents.
       (iv) Consultation.--The Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council is authorized to freely consult with those members 
     listed on the roll concerning the text and description of the 
     proposed organic governing documents.
       (D) Elections.--
       (i) In general.--The Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council is authorized to hold elections for the purpose of 
     ratifying the proposed organic governing documents, and upon 
     ratification of the organic governing documents, to hold 
     elections for the officers of the Native Hawaiian government.
       (ii) Assistance.--Upon the request of the Native Hawaiian 
     Interim Governing Council, the United States Office of Native 
     Hawaiian Affairs may assist the Council in conducting such 
     elections.
       (4) Termination.--The Native Hawaiian Interim Governing 
     Council shall have no power or authority under this Act after 
     the time at which the duly elected officers of the Native 
     Hawaiian government take office.
       (d) Recognition of the Native Hawaiian Government.--
       (1) Process for recognition.--
       (A) Submittal of organic governing documents.--The duly 
     elected officers of the Native Hawaiian government shall 
     submit the organic governing documents of the Native Hawaiian 
     government to the Secretary.
       (B) Certifications.--Within 90 days of the date that the 
     duly elected officers of the Native Hawaiian government 
     submit the organic governing documents to the Secretary, the 
     Secretary shall certify that the organic governing 
     documents--
       (i) were adopted by a majority vote of the adult members 
     listed on the roll prepared under the authority of subsection 
     (a);
       (ii) are consistent with applicable Federal law and the 
     special trust relationship between the United States and the 
     indigenous native people of the United States;
       (iii) provide for the exercise of those governmental 
     authorities that are recognized by the United States as the 
     powers and authorities that are exercised by other 
     governments representing the indigenous, native people of the 
     United States;
       (iv) provide for the protection of the civil rights of the 
     citizens of the Native Hawaiian government and all persons 
     subject to the authority of the Native Hawaiian government, 
     and to assure that the Native Hawaiian government exercises 
     its authority consistent with the requirements of section 202 
     of the Act of April 11, 1968 (25 U.S.C. 1302);
       (v) prevent the sale, disposition, lease, or encumbrance of 
     lands, interests in lands, or other assets of the Native 
     Hawaiian government without the consent of the Native 
     Hawaiian government;
       (vi) establish the criteria for citizenship in the Native 
     Hawaiian government; and
       (vii) provide authority for the Native Hawaiian government 
     to negotiate with Federal, State, and local governments, and 
     other entities.
       (C) Failure to act.--If the Secretary fails to act within 
     90 days of the date that the duly elected officers of the 
     Native Hawaiian government submitted the organic governing 
     documents of the Native Hawaiian government to the Secretary, 
     the certifications authorized in subparagraph (B) shall be 
     deemed to have been made.
       (D) Resubmission in case of noncompliance with federal 
     law.--
       (i) Resubmission by the secretary.--If the Secretary 
     determines that the organic governing documents, or any part 
     thereof, are not consistent with applicable Federal law, the 
     Secretary shall resubmit the organic governing documents to 
     the duly elected officers of the Native Hawaiian government 
     along with a justification for each of the Secretary's 
     findings as to why the provisions are not consistent with 
     such law.
       (ii) Amendment and resubmission by the native hawaiian 
     government.--If the organic governing documents are 
     resubmitted to the duly elected officers of the Native 
     Hawaiian government by the Secretary under clause (i), the 
     duly elected officers of the Native Hawaiian government 
     shall--

       (I) amend the organic governing documents to ensure that 
     the documents comply with applicable Federal law; and
       (II) resubmit the amended organic governing documents to 
     the Secretary for certification in accordance with 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C).

       (2) Federal recognition.--
       (A) Recognition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, upon the election of the officers of the Native Hawaiian 
     government and the certifications (or deemed certifications) 
     by the Secretary authorized in paragraph (1), Federal 
     recognition is hereby extended to the Native Hawaiian 
     government as the representative governing body of the Native 
     Hawaiian people.
       (B) No diminishment of rights or privileges.--Nothing 
     contained in this Act shall diminish, alter, or amend any 
     existing rights or privileges enjoyed by the Native Hawaiian 
     people which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be 
     necessary to carry out the activities authorized in this Act.

     SEC. 9. REAFFIRMATION OF DELEGATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY; 
                   NEGOTIATIONS.

       (a) Reaffirmation.--The delegation by the United States of 
     authority to the State of Hawaii to address the conditions of 
     Native Hawaiians contained in the Act entitled ``An Act to 
     provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii into the 
     Union'' approved March 18, 1959 (Public Law 86-3; 73 Stat. 5) 
     is hereby reaffirmed.
       (b) Negotiations.--Upon the Federal recognition of the 
     Native Hawaiian government pursuant to section 7(d)(2) of 
     this Act, the United States is authorized to negotiate and 
     enter into an agreement with the State of Hawaii and the 
     Native Hawaiian government regarding the transfer of lands, 
     resources, and assets dedicated to Native Hawaiian use under 
     existing law as in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act to the Native Hawaiian government.

     SEC. 10. APPLICABILITY OF INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT.

       (a) Prohibition.--The Native Hawaiian government and Native 
     Hawaiians may not conduct gaming activities as a matter of 
     claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any 
     Federal law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) or under any regulations thereunder 
     promulgated by the Secretary or the National Indian Gaming 
     Commission.
       (b) Applicability.--The foregoing prohibition in section 
     10(a) on the use of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and 
     inherent authority to game apply regardless of whether gaming 
     by Native Hawaiians or the Native Hawaiian government would 
     be located on land within the State of Hawaii or within any 
     other State or territory of the United States.

     SEC. 11. DISCLAIMER.

       Nothing in this Act is intended to serve as a settlement of 
     any claims against the United States, or to affect the rights 
     of the Native Hawaiian people under international law.

     SEC. 12. REGULATIONS.

       The Secretary is authorized to make such rules and 
     regulations and such delegations of authority as the 
     Secretary deems necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 13. SEVERABILITY.

       In the event that any section or provision of this Act, or 
     any amendment made by this Act is held invalid, it is the 
     intent of Congress that the remaining sections or provisions 
     of this Act, and the amendments made by this Act, shall 
     continue in full force and effect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
  S. 709. A bill to better provide for compensation for certain persons 
injured in the course of employment at the Santa Susana Field 
Laboratory in California; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senator Boxer to reintroduce legislation to enable hundreds of former 
Santa Susana Field Laboratory Workers or their survivors to receive 
compensation for illnesses caused by exposure to radiation and other 
toxic substances.
  Specifically, the Santa Susana Fair Compensation Act would provide a 
special status designation under the Energy Employees Occupational 
Illness Compensation Act to Santa Susana Field Laboratory employees, so 
they can receive the benefits they deserve.
  In addition, the bill would extend the ``special exposure cohort'' 
status to Department of Energy employees, Department of Energy contract 
employees, or atomic weapons employees who worked at the Santa Susana 
Field Laboratory for at least 250 days prior to January 1, 2009.
  This revision would ensure that the Act's benefits are available to 
any of those workers who developed a radiation-linked cancer due to 
their employment at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory.
  This bill fulfills the intent of Congress when it approved the act, 
providing compensation and care for nuclear program workers who 
suffered severe health problems caused by on-the-job exposure to 
radiation.
  The Santa Susana Field Laboratory is a 2,849-acre facility located 
about 30 miles north of downtown Los Angeles.
  During the Cold War, it was used for the development and testing of 
nuclear reactors and powerful rockets, including those used in 
America's space and ballistic missile programs.

[[Page S3802]]

  Sadly, many workers of the Cold War era were exposed to radiation on 
a regular basis. But claims for compensation are hampered by incomplete 
and inaccurate records.
  Some records show only estimated levels of exposure for workers, and 
are imprecise. In other cases, if records were kept, they cannot be 
found today.
  Many Santa Susana Field Laboratory workers were not aware of the 
hazards at their workplace. Remarkably, no protective equipment--like 
respirators, gloves, or body suits--was provided to workers.
  More than 600 claims for compensation have been filed by Santa Susana 
Field Lab workers, but only a small fraction have been approved. A lack 
of documentation, or inability to prove exposure thresholds, has 
hindered hundreds of claims that may well be legitimate. And, for some 
lab workers and their families, it is impossible to reconstruct 
exposure scenarios due to records having been destroyed.
  Santa Susana Field Lab workers and their families now face the burden 
of having to reconstruct exposure scenarios that existed more than 40 
years ago, in most cases with little or no documentation.
  The case of my constituent, Betty Reo, provides an example of why 
this legislation is necessary.
  Ms. Reo's husband, Cosmo Reo, worked at the Santa Susana Field 
Laboratory as an instrumentation mechanic from April 18, 1957 until May 
17, 1960.
  Cosmo worked in the rocket testing pits and was exposed to hydrazine, 
trichlorithylene, and other cancer-causing chemicals which attack the 
lungs, bladder and kidneys.
  Cosmo died of renal failure in 1980. Ms. Reo applied for benefits 
under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. She 
has been trying to reconstruct the exposure scenarios under which her 
husband worked, but without adequate documentation she has been 
repeatedly denied benefits.
  This bill would help people like Betty Reo, people who lack the 
documentation necessary to prove their cases, and those who worked in 
any of the four areas of the Santa Susana site.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in correcting these injustices and 
cutting through the ``red tape'' that prevents Santa Susana Field 
Laboratory workers, and their families, from receiving fair 
compensation.
  For many, such as Ms. Reo, time is running out. We can no longer 
afford to delay, and this bill provides a straightforward solution to 
fix a broken system.
  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:

                                 S. 709

       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 ``Santa Susana Fair 
     Compensation Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF MEMBER OF SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT.

       (a) In General.--Section 3621(14) of the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (42 
     U.S.C. 7384l(14)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) The employee was so employed for a number of work 
     days aggregating at least 250 work days before January 1, 
     2009, by the Department of Energy or a Department of Energy 
     contractor or subcontractor at the Santa Susana Field 
     Laboratory in California.''.
       (b) Reapplication.--A claim that an individual qualifies, 
     by reason of section 3621(14)(D) of the Energy Employees 
     Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 (as 
     added by subsection (a)), for compensation or benefits under 
     such Act shall be considered for compensation or benefits 
     notwithstanding any denial of any other claim for 
     compensation with respect to such individual.

                          ____________________