[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 2010)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2020-S2026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Casey):
S. 3159. A bill to amend Public Law 10-377 to revise the boundaries
of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg
Train Station, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation to incorporate two historically significant properties into
the boundary of Gettysburg National Military Park. This expansion
effort is consistent with Gettysburg National Military Park's 1999
General Management Plan, the goals of the National Park Service and is
supported by the Gettysburg Borough Council.
The bill I have introduced will expand the boundary of the park to
include the Gettysburg Railroad Station, also known as the Lincoln
Train Station, located in downtown Gettysburg, PA. This train station
was built in 1858 and is listed in the National Register of Historic
Places. The station served as a hospital during the Battle of
Gettysburg and was the departure point for thousands of soldiers who
were wounded or killed in battle. The Lincoln Train Station is perhaps
most historically significant as the site at which President Abraham
Lincoln arrived on November 18, 1863, 1 day before he delivered the
Gettysburg Address.
Currently, the station is operated by the National Trust for Historic
Gettysburg and is open to the public throughout the year. Additionally,
the station
[[Page S2021]]
served as the home of the Pennsylvania Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial
Commission, which promoted events to commemorate the 200th anniversary
year of Lincoln's birth in 2009. I am informed that the borough of
Gettysburg had planned for the Lincoln Train Station to be used as an
information and orientation center for visitors. Toward that goal, the
borough in 2006 completed a rehabilitation of the station funded
thought a State grant but has been unable to operate the visitor center
due to a lack of funds. Accordingly, I understand that the Gettysburg
Borough Council voted in 2008 to transfer the station to the National
Park Service.
The legislation I introduced also expands the boundary of Gettysburg
National Military Park to include 45 acres of land at the southern end
of Gettysburg battlefield. I am informed by National Park officials
that there were cavalry skirmishes in this area during the Battle of
Gettysburg in July of 1863. Moreover, I am advised that this property
is environmentally significant as the home to wetlands and wildlife
habitat related to the Plum Run stream that traverses the park. This
45-acre property is adjacent to current park land and was generously
donated in April of 2009. Therefore, no federal land acquisition
funding will be necessary to obtain this property.
This legislation will help preserve properties and land that are
historically and environmentally significant and critically important
to telling the story of the Battle of Gettysburg. The Civil War was a
defining moment for our Nation and we ought to take steps necessary to
preserve historical assets for the benefit of current and future
generations.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 3160. A bill to provide information, resources, recommendations,
and funding to help State and local law enforcement enact crime
prevention and intervention strategies supported by rigorous evidence;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
PRECAUTION Act--the Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal
Activity Using Tailored Interventions in Our Neighborhoods Act. It is a
long name, but it stands for an important principle--that it is better
to invest in precautionary measures now than it is to pay the costs of
crime--both in dollars and lives--later on. I am pleased that the
Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, will again join me as an
original cosponsor of this legislation.
The Federal Government has three important roles to play in fighting
crime. First, the Federal Government should develop and disseminate
knowledge to state and local officials regarding the newest and most
effective law enforcement techniques and strategies. Second, the
Federal Government should provide financial support for innovations
that our State and local partners cannot afford to fund on their own.
With that funding, it should also provide guidance, training, and
technical assistance to implement those innovations. Third, the Federal
Government can help to create and maintain effective partnerships among
agencies at all levels of government, partnerships that are crafted to
address specific law enforcement challenges.
The PRECAUTION Act is designed to support all three of these
important roles. It creates a national commission to wade through the
sea of information on crime prevention and intervention strategies
currently available to identify those programs that are most ready for
replication around the country. Over-taxed law enforcement officials
need a simple, accessible resource to turn to that recommends a few,
top-tier crime prevention and intervention programs. They need a
resource that will single out those existing programs that are truly
``evidence-based'' programs that are proven by scientifically reliable
evidence to be effective. The commission created by the PRECAUTION Act
will provide just such a report--written in plain language and focused
on pragmatic implementation issues--approximately a year and a half
after the bill is enacted.
In the course of holding hearings and writing this first report, the
commission will also identify some types of prevention and intervention
strategies that are promising but need further research and development
before they are ready for further implementation. The National
Institute of Justice then will administer a grant program that will
fund pilot projects in these identified areas. The commission will
follow closely the progress of these pilot projects, and at the end of
the three-year grant program, it will publish a second report,
providing a detailed discussion of each pilot project and its
effectiveness. This second report will include detailed implementation
information and will discuss both the successes and failures of the
projects funded by the grants.
There is particular urgency for this bill as State and Federal budget
shortfalls continue and State and local law enforcement are forced to
do more with fewer resources. There is no doubt that money is tight,
which makes it all the more important that innovative and cost-
effective law enforcement strategies that benefit both public safety
and the government bottom line are being used in our communities. To
help accomplish this, the Federal Government must work in concert with
State and local law enforcement, with the non-profit criminal justice
community, and with other branches of State and Federal Government.
While we have an obligation to provide leadership and support, we do
not have the right to unilaterally take control from the State and
local officials on the ground. With these partnerships in place we can
invest our resources in crime-fighting measures, confident that they
will work. Sometimes, small and careful advances are the ones that
yield the most benefit.
The PRECAUTION Act answers a call by police chiefs and mayors from
more than 50 cities around the country during a national conference
hosted by the Police Executive Research Forum in 2006. According to a
report on the event from the Forum, these law enforcement leaders
agreed that while there is a desperate need for the law enforcement
community to focus on violent crime, ``other municipal agencies and
social services organizations--including schools, mental health, public
health, courts, corrections, and conflict management groups--need to be
brought together to partner toward the common goal of reducing violent
crime.'' In the hearings held by the PRECAUTION Act commission, these
voices will all be heard. In the reports filed by the commission, these
perspectives will be acknowledged. In the pilot projects administered
by the National Institute of Justice, these partnerships will be
developed and fostered.
The Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted the need for cost saving
measures when it held a hearing entitled ``Encouraging Innovative and
Cost-Effective Crime Reduction Strategies.'' Chief of Police Michael
Schirling of Burlington, Vermont, in response to a question I asked him
in conjunction with the hearing, said of the PRECAUTION Act that it
would be:
[A] useful tool for law enforcement that could, if properly
implemented, result in long-term cost savings not only for
law enforcement, but also for communities as a whole. The
manner in which creative initiatives would be studied to
validate their effectiveness and then added to a resource
library of new ideas seems like a prudent approach to
spreading important concepts and ideas to improve the
criminal justice system in a meaningful way.
The PRECAUTION Act, though very modest in scope, is an important
supplement to the essential financial support the Federal Government
provides to our State and local law enforcement partners through
programs such as the Byrne Justice Assistance grants and the COPS
grants. When State and local law enforcement receive Federal support
for policing, they have difficult decisions to make on how to spend
those Federal dollars. We all know that prevention and intervention are
integral components of any comprehensive law enforcement plan. The
PRECAUTION Act not only highlights the importance of these components,
but will also help to single out some of the best, most effective forms
of prevention and intervention programs. At the same time, it will help
to develop additional, cutting-edge strategies that are supported by
solid scientific evidence of their effectiveness.
[[Page S2022]]
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. 3160
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 ``Prevention Resources for
Eliminating Criminal Activity Using Tailored Interventions in
Our Neighborhoods Act of 2010'' or the ``PRECAUTION Act''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) establish a commitment on the part of the Federal
Government to provide leadership on successful crime
prevention and intervention strategies;
(2) further the integration of crime prevention and
intervention strategies into traditional law enforcement
practices of State and local law enforcement offices around
the country;
(3) develop a plain-language, implementation-focused
assessment of those current crime and delinquency prevention
and intervention strategies that are supported by rigorous
evidence;
(4) provide additional resources to the National Institute
of Justice to administer grants, contracts, and cooperative
agreements for research and development for promising crime
prevention and intervention strategies;
(5) develop recommendations for Federal priorities for
crime and delinquency prevention and intervention research,
development, and funding that may augment important Federal
grant programs, including the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), grant programs administered by the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the
Department of Justice, grant programs administered by the
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools of the Department of
Education, and other similar programs; and
(6) reduce the costs that rising violent crime imposes on
interstate commerce.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the National
Commission on Public Safety Through Crime Prevention
established under section 4(a).
(2) Rigorous evidence.--The term ``rigorous evidence''
means evidence generated by scientifically valid forms of
outcome evaluation, particularly randomized trials (where
practicable).
(3) Subcategory.--The term ``subcategory'' means 1 of the
following categories:
(A) Family and community settings (including public health-
based strategies).
(B) Law enforcement settings (including probation-based
strategies).
(C) School settings (including antigang and general
antiviolence strategies).
(4) Top-tier.--The term ``top-tier'' means any strategy
supported by rigorous evidence of the sizable, sustained
benefits to participants in the strategy or to society.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH CRIME
PREVENTION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the National Commission on Public Safety Through
Crime Prevention.
(b) Members.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, of whom--
(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President, 1 of whom shall
be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs or a representative of such Assistant Attorney
General;
(B) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, unless the Speaker is of the same party as
the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and 1 shall be
appointed by the minority leader of the House of
Representatives;
(C) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives (in addition to any appointment made
under subparagraph (B));
(D) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate, unless the majority leader is of the same party as
the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the
majority leader of the Senate and 1 shall be appointed by the
minority leader of the Senate; and
(E) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate (in addition to any appointment made under
subparagraph (D)).
(2) Persons eligible.--
(A) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall be an
individual who has knowledge or expertise in matters to be
studied by the Commission.
(B) Required representatives.--At least--
(i) 2 members of the Commission shall be respected social
scientists with experience implementing or interpreting
rigorous, outcome-based trials; and
(ii) 2 members of the Commission shall be law enforcement
practitioners.
(3) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the
House of Representatives, and the majority leader and
minority leader of the Senate shall consult prior to the
appointment of the members of the Commission to achieve, to
the maximum extent possible, fair and equitable
representation of various points of view with respect to the
matters to be studied by the Commission.
(4) Term.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of
the Commission.
(5) Time for initial appointments.--The appointment of the
members shall be made not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(6) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled
in the manner in which the original appointment was made, and
shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which
the vacancy occurred.
(7) Ex officio members.--The Director of the National
Institute of Justice, the Director of the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Director of the
Community Capacity Development Office, the Director of the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Director of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, and the Director of Community Oriented
Policing Services (or a representative of each such director)
shall each serve in an ex officio capacity on the Commission
to provide advice and information to the Commission.
(c) Operation.--
(1) Chairperson.--At the initial meeting of the Commission,
the members of the Commission shall elect a chairperson from
among its voting members, by a vote of \2/3\ of the members
of the Commission. The chairperson shall retain this position
for the life of the Commission. If the chairperson leaves the
Commission, a new chairperson shall be selected, by a vote of
\2/3\ of the members of the Commission.
(2) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
chairperson. The initial meeting of the Commission shall take
place not later than 30 days after the date on which all the
members of the Commission have been appointed.
(3) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, and the
Commission may establish a lesser quorum for conducting
hearings scheduled by the Commission.
(4) Rules.--The Commission may establish by majority vote
any other rules for the conduct of Commission business, if
such rules are not inconsistent with this Act or other
applicable law.
(d) Public Hearings.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall hold public hearings.
The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such
times and places, take such testimony, and receive such
evidence as the Commission considers advisable to carry out
its duties under this section.
(2) Focus of hearings.--The Commission shall hold at least
3 separate public hearings, each of which shall focus on 1 of
the subcategories.
(3) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before
the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to
witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code.
The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be
paid from funds appropriated to the Commission.
(e) Comprehensive Study of Evidence-Based Crime Prevention
and Intervention Strategies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall carry out a
comprehensive study of the effectiveness of crime and
delinquency prevention and intervention strategies, organized
around the 3 subcategories.
(2) Matters included.--The study under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) a review of research on the general effectiveness of
incorporating crime prevention and intervention strategies
into an overall law enforcement plan;
(B) an evaluation of how to more effectively communicate
the wealth of social science research to practitioners;
(C) a review of evidence regarding the effectiveness of
specific crime prevention and intervention strategies,
focusing on those strategies supported by rigorous evidence;
(D) an identification of--
(i) promising areas for further research and development;
and
(ii) other areas representing gaps in the body of knowledge
that would benefit from additional research and development;
(E) an assessment of the best practices for implementing
prevention and intervention strategies;
(F) an assessment of the best practices for gathering
rigorous evidence regarding the implementation of
intervention and prevention strategies; and
(G) an assessment of those top-tier strategies best suited
for duplication efforts in a range of settings across the
country.
(3) Initial report on top-tier crime prevention and
intervention strategies.--
(A) Distribution.--Not later than 18 months after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall submit a public report on the study
carried out under this subsection to--
(i) the President;
(ii) Congress;
(iii) the Attorney General;
(iv) the Chief Federal Public Defender of each district;
(v) the chief executive of each State;
(vi) the Director of the Administrative Office of the
Courts of each State;
[[Page S2023]]
(vii) the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts; and
(viii) the attorney general of each State.
(B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall
include--
(i) the findings and conclusions of the Commission;
(ii) a summary of the top-tier strategies, including--
(I) a review of the rigorous evidence supporting the
designation of each strategy as top-tier;
(II) a brief outline of the keys to successful
implementation for each strategy; and
(III) a list of references and other information on where
further information on each strategy can be found;
(iii) recommended protocols for implementing crime and
delinquency prevention and intervention strategies generally;
(iv) recommended protocols for evaluating the effectiveness
of crime and delinquency prevention and intervention
strategies; and
(v) a summary of the materials relied upon by the
Commission in preparation of the report.
(C) Consultation with outside authorities.--In developing
the recommended protocols for implementation and rigorous
evaluation of top-tier crime and delinquency prevention and
intervention strategies under this paragraph, the Commission
shall consult with the Committee on Law and Justice at the
National Academy of Science and with national associations
representing the law enforcement and social science
professions, including the National Sheriffs' Association,
the Police Executive Research Forum, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Consortium of Social
Science Associations, and the American Society of
Criminology.
(f) Recommendations Regarding Innovative Crime Prevention
and Intervention Strategies.--
(1) Submission.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the final hearing under subsection (d) relating to a
subcategory, the Commission shall provide the Director of the
National Institute of Justice and the Attorney General with
recommendations on qualifying considerations relating to that
subcategory for selecting recipients of contracts,
cooperative agreements, and grants under section 5.
(B) Deadline.--Not later than 13 months after the date on
which all members of the Commission have been appointed, the
Commission shall provide all recommendations required under
this subsection.
(2) Matters included.--The recommendations provided under
paragraph (1) shall include recommendations relating to--
(A) the types of strategies for the applicable subcategory
that would best benefit from additional research and
development;
(B) any geographic or demographic targets;
(C) the types of partnerships with other public or private
entities that might be pertinent and prioritized; and
(D) any classes of crime and delinquency prevention and
intervention strategies that should not be given priority
because of a pre-existing base of knowledge that would
benefit less from additional research and development.
(g) Final Report on the Results of Innovative Crime
Prevention and Intervention Strategies.--
(1) In general.--Following the close of the 3-year period
for the evaluation of an innovative strategy under section 5,
the Commission shall collect the results of the evaluation
and shall submit a public report to the President, the
Attorney General, Congress, the chief executive of each
State, and the attorney general of each State describing each
strategy funded under section 5 and the results of the
strategy. The report under this paragraph shall be submitted
not later than 5 years after the date of the selection of the
chairperson of the Commission.
(2) Collection of information and evidence regarding
recipients.--The collection of information and evidence by
the Commission regarding each recipient of a contract,
cooperative agreement, or grant under section 5 shall be
carried out by--
(A) ongoing communications with the grant administrator at
the National Institute of Justice and other appropriate
officers at other components of the Department of Justice;
(B) visits by representatives of the Commission (including
at least 1 member of the Commission) to the site where the
recipient of a contract, cooperative agreement, or grant is
carrying out the strategy funded under section 5, at least
once in the second and once in the third year of the
contract, cooperative agreement, or grant;
(C) a review of the data generated by the study monitoring
the effectiveness of the strategy; and
(D) other means as necessary.
(3) Matters included.--The report submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include a review of each strategy carried out with
a contract, cooperative agreement, or grant under section 5,
detailing--
(A) the type of crime or delinquency prevention or
intervention strategy;
(B) where the activities under the strategy were carried
out, including geographic and demographic targets;
(C) any partnerships with public or private entities
through the course of the period of the contract, cooperative
agreement, or grant;
(D) the type and design of the effectiveness study
conducted under section 5(b)(4) or section 5(c)(2)(C) for
that strategy;
(E) the results of the effectiveness study conducted under
section 5(b)(4) or section 5(c)(2)(C) for that strategy;
(F) lessons learned regarding implementation of that
strategy or of the effectiveness study conducted under
section 5(b)(4) or section 5(c)(2)(C), including
recommendations regarding which types of environments might
best be suited for successful replication; and
(G) recommendations regarding the need for further research
and development of the strategy.
(h) Personnel Matters.--
(1) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of service for the Commission.
(2) Compensation of members.--Members of the Commission
shall serve without compensation.
(3) Staff.--
(A) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate an executive director and such other
additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an
executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(B) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
such title.
(4) Detail of federal employees.--With the affirmative vote
of \2/3\ of the members of the Commission, any Federal
Government employee, with the approval of the head of the
appropriate Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission
without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without
interruption or loss of civil service status, benefits, or
privileges.
(i) Contracts for Research.--
(1) National institute of justice.--With a \2/3\
affirmative vote of the members of the Commission, the
Commission may select nongovernmental researchers and experts
to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under
this Act. The National Institute of Justice shall contract
with the researchers and experts selected by the Commission
to provide funding in exchange for their services.
(2) Other organizations.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to limit the ability of the Commission to enter
into contracts with other entities or organizations for
research necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission
under this section.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
(k) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the
date that is 30 days after the date on which the Commission
submits the last report required by this section.
(l) Exemption.--The Commission shall be exempt from the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
SEC. 5. INNOVATIVE CRIME PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION
STRATEGIES.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General may fund the
implementation and evaluation of innovative crime or
delinquency prevention or intervention strategies though
coordinated initiatives, as described in subsection (b),
through grants authorized under subsection (c), or a
combination of the coordinated initiatives and grants.
(b) Coordinated Initiatives.--
(1) In general.--The Attorney General, acting through the
Director of the National Institute of Justice, may coordinate
efforts between the National Institute of Justice and other
appropriate components of the Department of Justice to
implement and rigorously evaluate innovative crime or
delinquency prevention or intervention strategies.
(2) Selection of strategies.--The Director of the National
Institute of Justice, in consultation with the heads of other
appropriate components of the Department of Justice, shall
identify innovative crime or delinquency prevention or
intervention strategies that would best benefit from
additional funding and evaluation, taking into consideration
the recommendations of the Commission under section 4(f).
(3) Program office role.--The head of any appropriate
component of the Department of Justice, as determined by the
Attorney General, may provide incentives under a contract,
cooperative agreement, or grant entered into or made by the
component, including a competitive preference priority and
providing additional funds, for a public or private entity
to--
(A) implement a strategy identified under paragraph (2); or
(B) participate in the evaluation under paragraph (4) of
the strategies identified under paragraph (2).
(4) National institute of justice evaluation.--
(A) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of
Justice may enter into or make contracts, cooperative
agreements, or
[[Page S2024]]
grants to conduct a rigorous study of the effectiveness of
each strategy relating to which an incentive is provided
under paragraph (3).
(B) Amount and duration.--A contract, cooperative
agreement, or grant under subparagraph (A) shall be for not
more than $700,000, and shall be for a period of not more
than 3 years.
(C) Methodology of study.--Each study conducted under
subparagraph (A) shall use a study design that is likely to
produce rigorous evidence of the effectiveness of the
strategy and, where feasible, measure outcomes using
available administrative data, such as police arrest records,
so as to minimize the costs of the study.
(c) Grants Authorized.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of
Justice may make grants to public and private entities to
fund the implementation and evaluation of innovative crime or
delinquency prevention or intervention strategies. The
purpose of grants under this subsection shall be to provide
funds for all expenses related to the implementation of such
a strategy and to conduct a rigorous study on the
effectiveness of that strategy.
(2) Grant distribution.--
(A) Period.--A grant under this subsection shall be made
for a period of not more than 3 years.
(B) Amount.--The amount of each grant under this
subsection--
(i) shall be sufficient to ensure that rigorous evaluations
may be performed; and
(ii) shall not exceed $2,000,000.
(C) Evaluation set-aside.--
(i) In general.--A grantee shall use not less than $300,000
and not more than $700,000 of the funds from a grant under
this subsection for a rigorous study of the effectiveness of
the strategy during the 3-year period of the grant for that
strategy.
(ii) Methodology of study.--
(I) In general.--Each study conducted under clause (i)
shall use an evaluator and a study design approved by the
employee of the National Institute of Justice hired or
assigned under subsection (e) and, where feasible, measure
outcomes using available administrative data, such as police
arrest records, so as to minimize the costs of the study.
(II) Criteria.--The employee of the National Institute of
Justice hired or assigned under subsection (e) shall
approve--
(aa) an evaluator that has successfully carried out
multiple studies producing rigorous evidence of
effectiveness; and
(bb) a proposed study design that is likely to produce
rigorous evidence of the effectiveness of the strategy.
(III) Approval.--Before a grant is awarded under this
subsection, the evaluator and study design of a grantee shall
be approved by the employee of the National Institute of
Justice hired or assigned under subsection (e).
(D) Date of award.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of receiving recommendations relating to a subcategory from
the Commission under section 4(f), the Director of the
National Institute of Justice shall award all grants under
this subsection relating to that subcategory.
(E) Type of grants.--One-third of the grants made under
this subsection shall be made in each subcategory. In
distributing grants, the recommendations of the Commission
under section 4(f) shall be considered.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $18,000,000 to carry out subsections (b)
and (c).
(e) Dedicated Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of
Justice shall hire or assign a full-time employee to oversee
the contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants under this
section.
(2) Study oversight.--The employee of the National
Institute of Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1)
shall be responsible for ensuring that recipients of a
contract, cooperative agreement, or grant under this section
adhere to the study design approved before the contract,
cooperative agreement, or grant was entered into or awarded.
(3) Liaison.--The employee of the National Institute of
Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1) may be used as
a liaison between the Commission and the recipients of a
contract, cooperative agreement, or grant under this section.
The employee shall be responsible for ensuring timely
cooperation with Commission requests.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $150,000 for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2014 to carry out this subsection.
(f) Applications.--A public or private entity desiring a
contract, cooperative agreement, or grant under this section
shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as the Director of the
National Institute of Justice or other appropriate component
of the Department of Justice may reasonably require.
(g) Cooperation With the Commission.--A person entering
into a contract or cooperative agreement or receiving a grant
under this section shall cooperate with the Commission in
providing the Commission with full information on the
progress of the strategy being carried out with a contract,
cooperative agreement, or grant under this section,
including--
(1) hosting visits by the members of the Commission to the
site where the activities under the strategy are being
carried out;
(2) providing pertinent information on the logistics of
establishing the strategy for which the contract, cooperative
agreement, or grant under this section was received,
including details on partnerships, selection of participants,
and any efforts to publicize the strategy; and
(3) responding to any specific inquiries that may be made
by the Commission.
SEC. 6. FUNDING.
Section 524(c) of title 28, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:
``(12) For the first full fiscal year after the date of
enactment of the PRECAUTION Act, and each fiscal year
thereafter through the end of the fifth full fiscal year
after such date of enactment, there is appropriated to the
Attorney General from the Fund $4,750,000 to carry out the
PRECAUTION Act.''.
______
By Mrs. SHAHEEN:
S. 3161. A bill to establish penalties for servicers that fail to
timely evaluate the applications of homeowners under home loan
modification programs; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs.
Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mortgage
Modification Reform Act, which is designed to protect homeowners and
communities from big banks who fail to modify mortgages in a timely
fashion.
In the past year I have heard from hundreds of families in New
Hampshire who have fallen behind on their mortgages. Often, they tell
me that they can no longer afford their payments because of
circumstances beyond their control. A family member has been laid off
or had her hours reduced. Medical bills have started piling up. Higher
interest payments kicked in at just the wrong time. And since value of
the average home has declined over 15 percent in New Hampshire, they
now owe more on their home than it's worth.
But these families want to make it work, so they reach out to their
bank or ``mortgage servicer'' to figure out a way to make payments they
can afford. Often, when a homeowner comes to a servicer, they can work
together to bring the homeowner's payments down to an affordable level.
When a servicer modifies a mortgage, everybody wins: the homeowner can
stay in their home; the servicer avoids the costly foreclosure process;
and communities are spared from the devastating effects that
foreclosures have on home values and communities.
That is why these families in New Hampshire and others across the
country breathed a sigh of relief when they heard that a new program,
called the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, would provide
powerful incentives to servicers to work with borrowers to keep them in
their homes.
We were told that HAMP would help 3-4 million homeowners stay in
their homes by reducing the amount a family owes each month to 31
percent of its monthly income. The big, national servicer banks who
signed up for the program would avoid the foreclosure process and
receive incentive payments. Most importantly, communities would have
benefitted by stemming the tide of foreclosures, which have so
drastically lowered home values and the equity of millions of
homeowners.
But a year into the program, it is clear that many of these big banks
are unwilling or uninterested in helping people in our communities. The
banks routinely lose documents and ask the borrower to send them in
again, delaying the process for months at a time. They don't respond to
calls and voice messages that are only returned weeks or months later--
if they are returned at all. And as homeowners wait for a decision, the
banks charge them late fees, which puts them even further behind. When
homeowners finally receive modification offers, they often come at the
last minute--just days before the borrower's home is set to be
auctioned.
As a result of these abuses, instead of helping the millions of
homeowners that they promised would be able to stay in their homes,
servicers have offered trial modifications to less than 30 percent of
eligible homeowners. The banks participating in HAMP have only provided
permanent relief to only 116,000 homeowners.
We know that the servicers are capable of success in this program
because some servicers have been better than others. According to the
latest Servicer Performance Report from the Treasury, some servicers
have helped as little as 2 percent of their eligible
[[Page S2025]]
borrowers, while others have helped over 50 percent. And it's not
surprising that some of the servicers with the worst numbers are the
same big banks that were happy to be bailed out by TARP not too long
ago.
It is time to tell these big banks that enough's enough. We need
protections for homeowners, and we need to penalize the servicers who
have failed to offer the help they promised.
That is why I am introducing legislation today, the Mortgage
Modification Reform Act, to stop the big banks from abusing homeowners
and to start penalizing those who do not live up to their promise to
provide homeowners with the relief they need.
The Mortgage Modification Reform Act would charge banks ``late fees''
for every month that they fail to evaluate a homeowner for this
program. After 3 months, if a homeowner has not received an answer on
whether their mortgage will be modified, the banks' payments will be
reduced 10 percent for each month that it fails to evaluate the
homeowner. By reducing payments to the banks over time, the bank will
be encouraged to evaluate these borrowers earlier and more frequently.
This also protects the taxpayer by only rewarding those banks that
respond quickly and punishing those that fail to act. Banks will have
to perform to get paid, and if they don't, their compensation will stay
with to the taxpayer.
This legislation would also require banks to stop the foreclosure
process until it determines whether a borrower qualifies. This would
also give much-needed peace of mind to homeowners who aren't sure which
will come first: the modification they need, or the sale of their home.
In addition, the legislation would prevent banks from imposing fees
while they wait for a decision. There is no reason that a bank should
charge a homeowner for being delinquent while waiting for evaluation in
the program. There is no reason for a homeowner to pay fees for an
unnecessary foreclosure process. This legislation would put an end to
these abusive practices.
Finally, the Mortgage Modification Reform Act provides a protection
for borrowers that has been missing from day one of this program: a way
for homeowners to request a review of the bank's decision. Right now,
the banks make all the decisions whether a homeowner qualifies for the
program or not. There is no way for the homeowner to appeal that
decision. But we know that those decisions aren't always right. Many
homeowners were originally told that they didn't qualify, but ask their
Senator or get legal assistance to ask the servicer to take another
look. Often, they did qualify for the program, but the servicer did not
evaluate the borrower properly.
But not every homeowner should have to involve their Senator or a
lawyer to get their bank to respond. They should be able to make their
case on their own to an independent arbiter. This legislation requires
the Treasury Department to create a separate, independent review
process to allow homeowners who feel they have been wrongly denied the
chance to stay in their home. In addition, to ensure transparency, this
legislation would require the servicer to submit documentation to the
Treasury for each denial that it makes.
Making this program work isn't just important for these homeowners,
it's also critical to our economic recovery. With million homeowners
across the nation behind on their mortgages and at risk of foreclosure,
we need this program achieve its potential of stopping millions of
homes from flooding the housing market and further depressing home
values.
I urge my colleagues to join me to prevent banks from continuing to
abuse this program, and to get it on track to provide help to the
millions of homeowners who need it.
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. 3161
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 ``Mortgage Modification Reform
Act of 2010''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act--
(1) the term ``covered trial loan modification'' means a
trial loan modification--
(A) offered by a servicer to a homeowner under a home loan
modification program; and
(B) for which the servicer has received from the homeowner
the information required for a trial loan modification;
(2) the term ``home loan modification program'' means a
home loan modification program put into effect by the
Secretary under title I of division A of the Emergency
Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5211 et seq.),
including the Home Affordable Modification Program;
(3) the term ``homeowner'' means an individual who applies
for a home loan modification under a home loan modification
program;
(4) the term ``permanent loan modification'' means any
agreement reached between a homeowner and a servicer on a
long-term basis, as determined by the Secretary, under a home
loan modification program;
(5) the term ``qualified counselor'' means a qualified
counselor described in section 255(f) of the National Housing
Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(f));
(6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Treasury;
(7) the term ``servicer'' has the same meaning as in
section 129 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639a)
(relating to the duties of servicers of residential
mortgages), as added by section 201(b) of the Helping
Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-22; 123
Stat. 1638);
(8) the term ``servicer incentive payment'' means a payment
that is made by the Secretary to a servicer--
(A) in exchange, or as an incentive, for making a loan
modification under a home loan modification program; and
(B) at the time the servicer makes an offer of a trial or
permanent modification to a homeowner; and
(9) the term ``trial loan modification'' means any
agreement reached between a homeowner and a servicer on a
temporary basis, as determined by the Secretary, under a home
loan modification program.
SEC. 3. FORECLOSURE.
A servicer may not initiate or continue a foreclosure
proceeding with respect to the mortgage of a homeowner if--
(1) the homeowner submitted an application for a loan
modification under a home loan modification program--
(A) before receiving a notice of foreclosure from the
servicer; or
(B) not later than 30 days after the homeowner received a
notice of foreclosure from the servicer; and
(2) the servicer has not made a determination, as described
in section 5(a) that the homeowner does not qualify for a
loan modification under a home loan modification program.
SEC. 4. PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF IMPROPER DENIALS.
(a) Process for Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process by
which a homeowner may request the Secretary to review a
denial by a servicer of an application by the homeowner for a
trial loan modification or permanent loan modification.
(2) Qualified counselors.--The process established under
paragraph (1) shall include the use of qualified counselors
to report wrongful denials of trial loan modifications and
permanent loan modifications.
(3) Supporting documentation.--The Secretary shall require
a servicer to submit supporting documentation with respect to
any denial by the servicer of an application by a homeowner
for a trial loan modification or permanent loan modification
that is reviewed by the Secretary under the process
established under paragraph (1).
(b) Penalties.--If the Secretary determines after a review
under the process established under subsection (a) that a
servicer has wrongly denied the application of a homeowner
for a trial loan modification or a permanent loan
modification, the Secretary shall impose a penalty on the
servicer.
SEC. 5. PENALTIES FOR SERVICERS THAT DO NOT TIMELY EVALUATE
HOMEOWNERS.
(a) Time for Evaluation of Homeowners.--Not later than 3
months after the date on which a homeowner submits an
application for a loan modification to a servicer that
participates in a home loan modification program, the
servicer shall--
(1) evaluate the application of the homeowner; and
(2) notify the homeowner that--
(A) the homeowner is qualified for a trial loan
modification or a permanent loan modification under the home
loan modification program; or
(B) the servicer has denied the application.
(b) Priority for Evaluating Amendments.--
(1) Priority.--A servicer that participates in a home loan
modification program shall evaluate the applications of
homeowners for loan modifications in the order in which the
servicer receives the applications.
(2) Prohibition.--A servicer that participates in a home
loan modification program may not select the order in which
the applications of homeowners are evaluated for loan
modifications--
(A) on the basis of--
(i) the income of the homeowner that made the application;
or
(ii) the value of the loan for which a modification is
requested; or
[[Page S2026]]
(B) for any reason other than the time at which the
servicer receives the applications.
(c) Late Fees for Servicers.--
(1) Reduced servicer incentive payments for loans
individual homeowners.--The Secretary shall reduce the amount
of any servicer incentive payment with respect to the loan
modification of an individual homeowner by 10 percent for
each full month that--
(A) follows the date that is 3 months after the date on
which the homeowner submits an application for a loan
modification to the servicer; and
(B) precedes the date on which the servicer notifies the
homeowner under subsection (a)(2).
(2) Reduced payments for all loans.--If the Secretary
determines that, on the date that is 3 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, less than 75 percent of all
homeowners who applied to a servicer for loan modifications
under a home loan modification program have been evaluated
within 3 months of the date of the application, the Secretary
shall reduce by 25 percent the amount of any servicer
incentive payment the servicer would otherwise be eligible to
receive under the home loan modification program.
(d) Delinquency Fees Charged to Homeowners.--No servicer
may impose a fee on a homeowner due to delinquency during the
period beginning on the date on which the homeowner submits
an application to the servicer for a loan modification and
ending on the date on which the homeowner receives notice
under subsection (a)(2).
(e) Collection and Report of Data.--
(1) Collection of data.--Each servicer shall report to the
Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary
may determine, data relating to the processing by the
servicer of applications for loan modifications.
(2) Report of data.--The Secretary shall publish a monthly
report containing the data collected under paragraph (1).
SEC. 6. REDUCED PAYMENTS FOR FAILURE TO EVALUATE HOMEOWNERS
FOR PERMANENT MODIFICATIONS.
If the Secretary determines that, on the date that is 3
months after the date of enactment of this Act, less than 70
percent of all covered trial loan modifications offered by a
servicer have been evaluated for conversion to permanent loan
modifications before the date that is 3 months after the date
on which the servicer and the homeowner entered into an
agreement for a trial loan modification, the Secretary shall
reduce by 25 percent the amount of any servicer incentive
payment the servicer would otherwise be eligible to receive
under the home loan modification program. Such reduction
shall be in addition to any other reduction in payment that
may have been imposed on the servicer for any other violation
of this Act.
SEC. 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO PAYMENTS TO
HOMEOWNERS.
Nothing in this Act may be construed to require a reduction
of a payment by the Secretary made on behalf or for the
benefit of a homeowner in connection with a loan
modification.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Begich, Mr.
Bennet, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, of Ohio, Mr.
Burris, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr.
Casey, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr.
Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mrs.
Hagan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kaufman, Mr.
Kerry, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs.
McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr.
Pryor, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sanders, Mr.
Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Specter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester,
Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Warner, Mr.
Webb, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
S. 3162. A bill to clarify the health care provided by the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, concerns have been raised to me about a technical
error in the health care reform bill that was recently passed, the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590. In drafting the
PPACA, a provision was included which designates health care provided
under VA's authority as meeting the minimum required health care
coverage that an individual is required to maintain.
However, due to the way this exemption was worded, this definition
may exclude children with spina bifida, who are seriously disabled and
to whom VA provides reimbursement for comprehensive health care. The
underlying bill gave authority to the Secretary of Health and Human
Services to designate other care, which could include the VA spina
bifida program, as meeting the definition of minimum essential
coverage. This bill would simply clarify what was originally intended.
Chapter 18 of title 38 contains the Spina Bifida Health Care Program,
which is a health benefit program administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs for Vietnam War and certain Korean War Veterans' birth
children who have been diagnosed with spina bifida, except spina bifida
occulta. The program provides reimbursement for medical services and
supplies.
The legislation I introduce today corrects this small error.
Additionally, this legislation would clarify that recipients of CHAMPVA
would also be considered as meeting the requirement for minimum
essential coverage.
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. 3162
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDED BY THE
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS THAT CONSTITUTES
MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.
(a) In General.--Clause (v) of section 5000A(f)(1)(A) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section
1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is
amended to read as follows:
``(v) chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, United States Code, or
otherwise under the laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, of an individual entitled to coverage under
such chapter or laws for essential health benefits (as
defined by the Secretary for purposes of section 1302(b) of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) insofar as
such benefits are available under such chapter or laws; or''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect as if included in section 1501(b) of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and shall be
executed immediately after the amendments made by such
section 1501(b).
____________________