[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[Senate]
[Pages 13441-13462]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Domenici, 
        Mr. Allard, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Ensign, Mr. 
        Cornyn, Mr. Graham, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Brownback, 
        Mr. Craig, Mr. Sununu, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Vitter, 
        Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Isakson, Mrs. Dole, Mr. DeMint, Mr. 
        Voinovich, Mr. Thune, and Mr. Lott):
  S. 15. A bill to establish a new budget process to create a 
comprehensive plan to rein in spending, reduce the deficit, and regain 
control of the Federal budget process; to the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise today to talk specifically about 
how we get our fiscal house in order as a nation and especially as a 
government. Just last week, the Congress passed--or at least the Senate 
passed and the House passed--a proposal for a budget which, 
unfortunately, fails the American people dramatically in the area of 
controlling spending and in the area of good tax policy. It creates a 
cascade. It is a Democratic budget that creates a cascade of new 
spending, hundreds of billions of dollars of new spending which will 
grow the size of the Government dramatically and which is, therefore, 
undisciplined in its approach.
  It also proposes tax policy which will radically increase taxes on 
working Americans and have the effect of stifling what has been an 
extraordinary economic expansion, which in part has been a function of 
having a tax policy which understands that if you let people keep their 
money, they tend to be more productive with those dollars, they tend to 
go out and take risks, be entrepreneurs, create jobs, and as a result, 
the Federal Government gets more revenue because people creating these 
jobs pay taxes and we end up with more economic activity. We have had 
72 months of growth, and we have created 7.4 million new jobs in this 
country, and that is a significant step in the right direction toward 
economic expansion.
  But all that is at risk because we, as a government, tend to spend 
more than we take in, and we do not have in place a discipline 
necessary as a government to effectively manage our own house. This was 
reflected in the budget that was just passed, regrettably. Therefore, 
as we also look to the future, we are confronting a cost to the 
Government which is going to radically increase the expenditures of the 
Federal Government to a point where our children and our children's 
children will not be able to afford them.
  In fact, just the cost of three programs alone--Medicare, Social 
Security, and Medicaid--by the year 2025, because of the retirement of 
the baby boom generation, will actually exceed the amount of money 
which the Federal Government has historically spent as a percentage of 
gross national product. So by about the year 2025, because of the 
retirement of the baby boom generation, three programs--Social 
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--will absorb all the money that 
historically the Federal Government has spent, which means there will 
be no money left over for education, laying out roads, or environmental 
protection.
  We will be in a position where our children, in order to bear the 
burden of those three programs, will have to pay a tax rate which will 
make it impossible for them to afford their own Government and will 
make their lifestyle significantly constrained. The pressure on them 
will be dramatic because the burden of taxes will exceed their ability 
to pay them and still maintain a quality lifestyle. Their ability to 
send their children to college, to buy a house, to have a good 
lifestyle, to have the luxuries which our generation has had will be 
constrained by the fact that the size of the Federal Government is 
growing out of control as a function of the retirement of the baby boom 
generation.
  So these two events combined--the dramatic expansion in entitlement 
spending and the Democratic budget which was essentially grossly 
irresponsible in the area of spending on the discretionary side of the 
account and in the area of creating debt; it will add $2.5 trillion of 
new debt to the Federal Government over the 5 years of this budget--
these two events combined are going to put a lot of pressure on our 
economy and on the well-being of our Nation.
  A group of us believe very strongly that we need to put in place 
mechanisms in this Government which more effectively discipline the 
spending of the Government. So I am introducing today, along with 27 
colleagues--and that is a fair number of cosponsors--the Stop Over-
Spending Act, SOS. This bill has eight basic elements. I am not going 
to go through them all, but I wish to highlight the ones that are 
significant.
  Basically, what this bill does is it puts in place disciplines which 
allow this Congress, if it desires to do so--all of these disciplines 
can be waived by 60-vote points of order, basically--if Congress 
desires to do so, it can limit the growth of the Federal Government to 
something that is affordable to the American people.
  The most important discipline this bill puts in place is one over 
entitlement spending. Right now, we have nothing that controls 
entitlement spending. This bill says that if entitlement spending 
reaches a certain level of use of general funds of the Treasury--and 
most of these entitlement programs--Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid--are not supposed to be overwhelming burdens on the general 
fund, the general fund being basic income taxes, not retirement taxes 
and health insurance taxes--if the burden of these programs exceeds a 
certain level, then there are mechanisms which allow us to take a 
second look at these programs to improve them, to make them cost-
effective while delivering quality services.
  In addition, this proposal puts in place caps, serious caps on 
discretionary spending so that we know that when you hit a certain 
level of spending and you are trying to exceed the amount of money the 
Federal Government should spend, there will be a 60-vote point of order 
before that can occur. That is only reasonable, that is only good 
budgeting, and it is something we need to have in place.
  Unfortunately, the Democratic budget which was just passed 
essentially got rid of caps for the year 2009, 2010, and it puts them 
in place for 2008, but that is almost irrelevant because it raises them 
so high that there is no way anybody is going to hit those caps unless 
they are truly spendthrifts.
  They basically add $200 billion of new spending over the next 5 
years, and next year they dramatically increase spending, both through 
taking programs off the budget by declaring them emergencies, such as 
in the agricultural area, and putting them into the next year through 
advanced funding, which is a total gamesmanship, and then actually 
increasing the spending

[[Page 13442]]

levels under the discretionary account. It is a grossly irresponsible 
cascade of new spending we see coming at us next year as a result of 
this Democratic budget. This Stop Over-Spending Act will try to 
discipline that in a more effective way, and it is time we did that.
  In addition, it puts in place two very aggressive proposals to try to 
take a look at how we are managing the bigger programs of the Federal 
Government. One is a proposal which came from Senator Brownback which 
is a bipartisan commission on accountability and Federal review. It is 
basically a BRAC commission for all the Federal Government. So if we 
find programs that are overlapping--and believe me, there are an awful 
lot of overlapping programs in the Federal Government--if we find 
programs that are just not producing the results they are supposed to 
produce or which have served their time, which were supposed to be 3-
year programs and they have been going on for 10, 15 years, we will 
have a mechanism where those programs can come back to the Congress and 
voted up or down, either they should be in place or not in place, the 
same way we approach managing the defense spending accounts through 
BRAC.
  There is a second commission put in place which, again, has an 
automatic vote by the Congress, which is an attempt to address the most 
significant issue we have, which is this entitlement spending issue 
which was reflected in the chart I held up earlier. This is a 
commission which would be set up, which would be bipartisan, which 
would be Members of the Congress, and which would essentially take a 
look at these programs--Social Security and Medicare specifically--and 
see how we can improve them, see how we can make them work more 
effectively but see how we can make them more affordable for our 
children, and then in a bipartisan way, with an overwhelming 
supermajority, so there is no question that anybody will be gamed, 
everybody will be at the table, and nobody will be gamed, bring those 
proposals back to Congress and vote them up or down without amendment 
so that we know this commission, when it makes a report, will actually 
get action from a report.
  The problem is that we get all these commissions and they produce 
wonderful reports and nothing happens. This commission will have 
something happening. It is a critical element. It is important.
  If we don't get on this issue of mandatory spending, we will be 
irresponsible as a generation. We are the generation that created this 
problem, the baby boom generation. We are the generation governing 
today. Probably 80 percent of the people in this body are of the baby 
boom generation. And what we are doing is burying our heads in the sand 
and passing what we know is a huge problem--which is going to occur 
because all the people who are going to create this problem exist and 
they are going to retire--we are going to pass that problem on to our 
children and say: You figure it out, even though it is a problem we 
created. That is irresponsible.
  As people who have obtained a position of governing in this country, 
we have an absolute responsibility to our children and our children's 
children and to this Nation's fiscal health to address this issue, and 
this commission is an attempt to do that. This Stop Over-Spending Act 
is an attempt to do just that.
  In addition, the proposal includes biannual budgeting, which is 
something many people around here think will help us be more efficient 
in the way we approach the accounts of the Federal Government. It 
changes and reforms a lot of what are institutional mechanisms for the 
purposes of managing the day-to-day business of the spending of the 
Federal Government by putting in place baselines which are appropriate 
and limitations on the ability to spend money around here under 
reconciliation and limitations on the ability to raise taxes 
arbitrarily on the American people.
  So it is a balanced approach. It has 27 cosponsors, and, quite 
honestly, if a percentage of these proposals were adopted, we would 
actually have some discipline around this place in the area of fiscal 
policy. We would be back on a path toward making sure we have a 
government that people can afford, while we still have a government 
that is delivering the services that people want. That should be our 
bottom-line goal.
  It is an honor for me to have a chance to introduce this today, to be 
the primary sponsor of it, but I especially appreciate the support of 
my colleagues in signing onto this bill, which I hope will be 
considered or at least elements of this bill will be considered because 
we are running out of time.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 31. A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to reduce 
fraud in certain visa programs for aliens working temporarily in the 
United States; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the H-1B Visa Fraud 
Prevention Act of 2007.
  Many American businesses rely on the H-1B visa program. When 
employers can demonstrate that there are too few U.S. workers to fill 
particular positions with defined education and skills standards, the 
program allows temporary, non-immigrant workers to fill vacancies in 
engineering, sciences, medicine, health, and other specialties.
  The program is of considerable benefit to our economy. Unfortunately, 
there has been a long history of some unscrupulous employers attempting 
to abuse the H-1B program. Last fall, the Portland Press Herald 
newspaper in Maine printed a three-part series resulting from its in-
depth investigation of H-1B abuses.
  The newspaper found evidence of shell companies filing applications 
for H-1B visas in Maine, but no evidence of H-1B visa holders actually 
working for those businesses in Maine. One company rented office space 
in Portland for a year and submitted at least 160 H-1B and green-card 
applications on behalf of foreign workers, but the building manager 
never saw anyone there, and was asked to forward all mail to an address 
in New Jersey.
  This legislation will help detect and prevent the kind of fraud 
identified by the Portland Press Herald.
  Before I describe the details of my legislation, I want to 
acknowledge the leadership of Senators Grassley, Durbin, Gregg, Hagel, 
and Lieberman on this issue. They have also drafted bills aimed at 
reforming the H-1B visa issuance process as well as expanding the 
number of H-1B visas. My hope is that we can join forces to craft an 
amendment to the immigration bill that will curb the fraud afflicting 
this program.
  Specifically, my legislation is targeted at detecting employers who 
do not have legitimate business operations that require H-1B workers 
and who intend only to transfer the H-1B workers they receive to 
another employer. This bill prohibits employers from contracting their 
H-1B workers to an employer in a different State.
  The Portland Press Herald's investigation showed that some employers 
may have filed for H-1B workers in Maine in order to take advantage of 
a lower prevailing wage, then transferred those employees to States 
where a higher prevailing wage would have been required on the H-1B 
application.
  The legislation I am proposing would remove onerous restrictions on 
the Department of Labor's ability to investigate suspected fraud. It 
would allow the Department to investigate applications that have clear 
indicators of fraud or misrepresentation, instead of merely checking 
for completeness and obvious inaccuracies, as current law provides.
  It also would expand the types of information that can be used to 
investigate fraudulent activity and eliminate a requirement that the 
Secretary of the Department of Labor personally approve each 
investigation. In addition, to further deter companies from filing 
fraudulent applications, the legislation would double the current 
monetary penalties.
  Preventing H-1B fraud and abuse also requires that the Department of 
Labor work more closely with the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, or

[[Page 13443]]

USCIS, which is the agency that ultimately approves an H-1B visa 
application. To that end, this legislation requires the Director of 
USCIS to share with Labor information it receives from employers who 
file H-1B visa applications that may indicate noncompliance with the H-
1B visa program.
  USCIS has taken first steps to detect fraud in other types of visas. 
For example, last July USCIS completed an assessment of religious-
worker benefit fraud that showed fraud in one-third of the cases 
surveyed. From these surveys, USCIS developed known indicators of fraud 
for religious-worker visas that it can now compare against incoming 
applications.
  USCIS began a similar assessment of benefit fraud for H-1B visas 
nearly a year ago. It is not yet completed, despite repeated inquiries 
by my staff on its status. This legislation requires completion of the 
H-1B fraud assessment within 30 days, so that USCIS can begin using 
this valuable tool to uncover fraud in other H-1B applications.
  This legislation fills gaps in our ability to ensure that H-1B visas 
are granted and used in the manner Congress intended. I urge my 
colleagues to support this proposal as we consider immigration-reform 
legislation.
  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. 31

       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 ``H-1B Visa Fraud Prevention 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. H-1B EMPLOYER REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Prohibition of Outplacement.--
       (1) In general.--Section 212(n) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by amending subparagraph (F) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(F) The employer shall not place, outsource, lease, or 
     otherwise contract for the placement of an alien admitted or 
     provided status as an H-1B nonimmigrant with another employer 
     if the worksite of the receiving employer is located in a 
     different State;'' and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (E).
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to applications filed on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Immigration Documents.--Section 204 of such Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1154) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Employer To Share All Immigration Paperwork Exchanged 
     With Federal Agencies.--Not later than 10 working days after 
     receiving a written request from a former, current, or future 
     employee or beneficiary, an employer shall provide the 
     employee or beneficiary with the original (or a certified 
     copy of the original) of all petitions, notices, and other 
     written communication exchanged between the employer and the 
     Department of Labor, the Department of Homeland Security, or 
     any other Federal agency that is related to an immigrant or 
     nonimmigrant petition filed by the employer for the employee 
     or beneficiary.''.

     SEC. 3. H-1B GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AND REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Safeguards Against Fraud and Misrepresentation in 
     Application Review Process.--Section 212(n)(1) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in the undesignated paragraph at the end, by striking 
     ``The employer'' and inserting the following:
       ``(H) The employer''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (H), as designated by paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection--
       (A) by inserting ``and through the Department of Labor's 
     website, without charge.'' after ``D.C.'';
       (B) by inserting ``, clear indicators of fraud, 
     misrepresentation of material fact,'' after ``completeness'';
       (C) by striking ``or obviously inaccurate'' and inserting 
     ``, presents clear indicators of fraud or misrepresentation 
     of material fact, or is obviously inaccurate'';
       (D) by striking ``within 7 days of'' and inserting ``not 
     later than 14 days after''; and
       (E) by adding at the end the following: ``If the 
     Secretary's review of an application identifies clear 
     indicators of fraud or misrepresentation of material fact, 
     the Secretary may conduct an investigation and hearing under 
     paragraph (2).''.
       (b) Investigations by Department of Labor.--Section 
     212(n)(2) of such Act is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``The Secretary shall 
     conduct'' and all that follows and inserting ``Upon the 
     receipt of such a complaint, the Secretary may initiate an 
     investigation to determine if such a failure or 
     misrepresentation has occurred.'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C)(i)--
       (A) by striking ``a condition of paragraph (1)(B), (1)(E), 
     or (1)(F)'' and inserting ``a condition under subparagraph 
     (B), (C)(i), (E), (F), (H), (I), or (J) of paragraph (1)''; 
     and
       (B) by striking ``(1)(C)'' and inserting ``(1)(C)(ii)'';
       (3) in subparagraph (G)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``if the Secretary'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``with regard to the employer's 
     compliance with the requirements of this subsection.'';
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking ``and whose identity'' and 
     all that follows through ``failure or failures.'' and 
     inserting ``the Secretary of Labor may conduct an 
     investigation into the employer's compliance with the 
     requirements of this subsection.'';
       (C) in clause (iii), by striking the last sentence;
       (D) by striking clauses (iv) and (v);
       (E) by redesignating clauses (vi), (vii), and (viii) as 
     clauses (iv), (v), and (vi), respectively;
       (F) by amending clause (v), as redesignated, to read as 
     follows:
       ``(v) The Secretary of Labor shall provide notice to an 
     employer of the intent to conduct an investigation. The 
     notice shall be provided in such a manner, and shall contain 
     sufficient detail, to permit the employer to respond to the 
     allegations before an investigation is commenced. The 
     Secretary is not required to comply with this clause if the 
     Secretary determines that such compliance would interfere 
     with an effort by the Secretary to investigate or secure 
     compliance by the employer with the requirements of this 
     subsection. A determination by the Secretary under this 
     clause shall not be subject to judicial review.'';
       (G) in clause (vi), as redesignated, by striking ``An 
     investigation'' and all that follows through ``the 
     determination.'' and inserting ``If the Secretary of Labor, 
     after an investigation under clause (i) or (ii), determines 
     that a reasonable basis exists to make a finding that the 
     employer has failed to comply with the requirements under 
     this subsection, the Secretary shall provide interested 
     parties with notice of such determination and an opportunity 
     for a hearing in accordance with section 556 of title 5, 
     United States Code, not later than 120 days after the date of 
     such determination.''; and
       (H) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(vii) The Secretary of Labor may impose a penalty under 
     subparagraph (C) if the Secretary, after a hearing, finds a 
     reasonable basis to believe that--
       ``(I) the employer has violated the requirements under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(II) the violation was not made in good faith.''; and
       (4) by striking subparagraph (H).
       (c) Information Sharing Between Department of Labor and 
     Department of Homeland Security.--Section 212(n)(2) of such 
     Act, as amended by this section, is further amended by 
     inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:
       ``(H) The Director of United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services shall provide the Secretary of Labor 
     with any information contained in the materials submitted by 
     H- 1B employers as part of the adjudication process that 
     indicates that the employer is not complying with H-1B visa 
     program requirements. The Secretary may initiate and conduct 
     an investigation and hearing under this paragraph after 
     receiving information of noncompliance under this 
     subparagraph.''.
       (d) Audits.--Section 212(n)(2)(A) of such Act, as amended 
     by this section, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Secretary may conduct surveys of the degree 
     to which employers comply with the requirements under this 
     subsection and may conduct annual compliance audits of 
     employers that employ H-1B nonimmigrants.''.
       (e) Penalties.--Section 212(n)(2)(C) of such Act, as 
     amended by this section, is further amended--
       (1) in clause (i)(I), by striking ``$1,000'' and inserting 
     ``$2,000'';
       (2) in clause (ii)(I), by striking ``$5,000'' and inserting 
     ``$10,000''; and
       (3) in clause (vi)(III), by striking ``$1,000'' and 
     inserting ``$2,000''.
       (f) Information Provided to H-1B Nonimmigrants Upon Visa 
     Issuance.--Section 212(n) of such Act, as amended by this 
     section, is further amended by inserting after paragraph (2) 
     the following:
       ``(3)(A) Upon issuing an H-1B visa to an applicant outside 
     the United States, the issuing office shall provide the 
     applicant with--
       ``(i) a brochure outlining the employer's obligations and 
     the employee's rights under Federal law, including labor and 
     wage protections;
       ``(ii) the contact information for Federal agencies that 
     can offer more information or assistance in clarifying 
     employer obligations and workers' rights; and
       ``(iii) a copy of the employer's H-1B application for the 
     position that the H-1B nonimmigrant has been issued the visa 
     to fill.
       ``(B) Upon the issuance of an H-1B visa to an alien inside 
     the United States, the officer

[[Page 13444]]

     of the Department of Homeland Security shall provide the 
     applicant with--
       ``(i) a brochure outlining the employer's obligations and 
     the employee's rights under Federal law, including labor and 
     wage protections;
       ``(ii) the contact information for Federal agencies that 
     can offer more information or assistance in clarifying 
     employer's obligations and workers' rights; and
       ``(iii) a copy of the employer's H-1B application for the 
     position that the H-1B nonimmigrant has been issued the visa 
     to fill.''.

     SEC. 4. H-1B WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS.

       Section 212(n)(2)(C)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(n)(2)(C)(iv)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``take, fail to take, or threaten to take 
     or fail to take, a personnel action, or'' before ``to 
     intimidate''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``An employer that 
     violates this clause shall be liable to the employees harmed 
     by such violation for lost wages and benefits.''.

     SEC. 5. FRAUD ASSESSMENT.

       Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Director of United States Citizenship and 
     Immigration Services shall submit to Congress a fraud risk 
     assessment of the H-1B visa program.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 32. A bill to reform the acquisition process of the Department of 
Defense, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am introducing this omnibus defense 
acquisition reform bill today to highlight the scope and urgent need 
for comprehensive reform in how the Pentagon procures its biggest and 
most expensive weapons systems.
  Defense acquisition policy has been a major issue ever since 
President Eisenhower first warned the Nation, in 1961, about the 
military-industrial complex. As Operation Ill Wind in the 1980s and the 
Boeing tanker lease scandal just a few years ago have taught us, 
Eisenhower's comments apply with equal force today.
  Despite the lessons of the past, the acquisition process continues to 
be dysfunctional. In the 110th Congress, major acquisition policy 
issues have arisen in some of the biggest defense programs, including 
the Navy transformational program, Littoral Combat Systems, LCS and the 
Air Force's second largest acquisition program, Combat Search and 
Rescue Vehicle Replacement Program, CSAR-X.
  We can not do much to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely 
in developing, testing and acquiring major defense systems. By 
increasing transparency and accountability and maximizing competition, 
comprehensive acquisition reform can provide the taxpayer with the best 
value; minimize waste, fraud and abuse; and, perhaps most importantly, 
help guarantee that the U.S. maintains the strongest, most capable 
fighting force in the world. That is what this legislative proposal is 
all about.
  Our colleagues in the House Armed Services Committee have already 
taken considerable steps in this area, which I applaud. It is my 
intention to offer this acquisition package to the defense 
authorization bill this week. The defense bill which we will be 
considering this week in the Committee on Armed Services totals more 
than $650 billion. That's serious money.
  As stewards of the taxpayers' dollars we must assure the public that 
we are buying the best programs for our servicemen and women at the 
best price for the taxpayer. I have already highlighted critical weapon 
systems with key acquisition problems. If we continue to buy weapon 
systems in an ineffective and inefficient manner so that costs continue 
to go up or the deployment of the system is delayed, it will only hurt 
the soldier, sailor, airman, or marine in the field.
  The reason for this is quite simple. First, it does not take an 
economics degree to understand that the higher that costs of a weapon 
system unexpectedly goes up, the fewer of them we can buy. A prime 
example is the F-22 Raptor. The original requirement was for 781 jet 
fighters, now we can only afford 183. In addition, without fundamental 
reforms, such as I have proposed in this bill, we will continue to buy 
weapon systems in an ineffective manner, which usually results in long 
delays and unexpected cost growth, as requirements, acquisition policy 
and resources never get in synch.
  One aspect of how the Pentagon buys the biggest weapons systems that 
my proposal addresses head-on is the ``requirements process''; that is, 
the process by which the Pentagon defines the weapon system it wants to 
procure. All too often, costly requirements, many of which are 
unrelated to what the unified commands say they need, are piled on to 
these programs irresponsibly, without regard to the bottom-line. Just 
as egregious is the tendency to drop requirements that the warfighter 
has said they need, which sometimes justified the system in the first 
instance.
  There is an emerging consensus that one way of addressing these, and 
related, problems is by integrating processes, that is, aligning the 
acquisition, resources, and requirements spheres of the procurement 
process in a way that provides the necessary accountability and agility 
for the Pentagon to make sound judgments on its defense investments. 
Historically, each sphere has been stove-piped and allowed to operate 
independently in a way that has produced poor cost, scheduling and 
performance outcomes, to the detriment of both the taxpayer and the 
warfighter.
  Elements of this legislative proposal that provide for ``integrated 
processes'' include 1. having the Service Chiefs help oversee 
acquisition management decisions; 2. standing-up a ``tri-chair 
committee''--so-called because it will be that headed by the primary 
players in the acquisition, resources and requirements communities--
that can help make enterprise-wide investment decisions more powerfully 
and with greater agility than any other procurement-related 
organization currently within the Pentagon 3. increasing the membership 
of the Pentagon's main requirements-setting body to include leadership 
from all three spheres; and 4. setting out guidelines that, when 
coupled with certain provisions currently under law, can help the 
Pentagon better manage unexpected cost growth.
  Other elements of this proposal address particular structural 
problems in major weapons procurement that Congress has observed over 
the last few years. One such provision restricts the services from 
entering into multiyear contracts irresponsibly when buying weapons. 
Buying weapons under a multiyear contract restricts Congress's ability 
to exercise appropriate oversight. If Congress bought these items under 
a series of annual contracts, there would be a meaningful opportunity 
for it to annually review the programs' progress. For this reason, 
using multiyear contracts should be limited to only the best performing 
and most stable programs. The approach provided for under this 
legislative proposal would help to ensure that.
  Other elements of this proposal would help reign in abuses in how the 
Government pays award fees and require defense contractors to maintain 
a robust internal ethics compliance program that can help maintain 
effective oversight of defense programs.
  In developing this reform package, I have pulled the ``best of the 
best,'' that is, the best, most powerful ideas which enjoy the broadest 
consensus among some of the most respected experts, whose ideas have 
been ventilated in public hearings and reps over the last 3 years, 
including the Defense Acquisition Performance Assessment Report, a.k.a. 
the DAPA or the Kadish Report; the Center for Strategic International 
Studies' CSIS, Beyond Goldwater-Nichols Report; the section 804 report 
from the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 
Logistics; a number of reports and analyses from the Government 
Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service; and 
others. Some of the elements of this package also institutionalize good 
ideas that the Pentagon has informally put in place recently.
  Acquisition reform of a bureaucracy as large as the Pentagon does not 
happen overnight. That is why we need to act now. Our defense spending 
has doubled in the last decade, from $350 billion to $650 billion. 
Every American I talk to as I cross the country understands that we 
need to spend as much as necessary for national defense. However, how 
much is enough? Taxpayers

[[Page 13445]]

also expect that we spend his or her hard-earned tax dollars in a sound 
and cost-effective manner. We have not been fulfilling that 
expectation. We need to. This proposed legislation sets us on that 
course.
  Chairman Levin and I have discussed the need for greater oversight in 
the Senate Armed Services Committee and the common goal of producing 
concrete results on acquisition reform this year. I look forward to 
working with Chairman Levin to fully adopt this acquisition package 
this week and also working with his capable staff in taking 
comprehensive steps, similar to what our House colleagues have done, to 
assure that we buy weapon systems at the best price and field them as 
soon as practicable.
  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. 32

       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 ``Defense Acquisition Reform 
     Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL EVALUATION OF 
                   MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS EXPERIENCING 
                   CERTAIN COST INCREASES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 144 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after section 2433 the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 2433a. Joint Requirements Oversight Council evaluation 
       of programs experiencing certain cost increases

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary concerned may not 
     reprogram funds for a major defense acquisition program 
     described in subsection (b), or otherwise provide or provide 
     for additional funding for such a program, until the Joint 
     Requirements Oversight Council submits to the Secretary an 
     assessment of the performance requirements for the item to be 
     procured under the contract, including the effect of such 
     requirements on cost increases under the program.
       ``(b) Covered Major Defense Acquisition Programs.--A major 
     defense acquisition program described in this subsection is 
     any major defense acquisition program as follows:
       ``(1) A major defense acquisition program that experiences 
     a percentage increase in the program acquisition unit cost 
     of--
       ``(A) at least 10 percent over the program acquisition unit 
     cost for the program as shown in the current Baseline 
     Estimate for the program; or
       ``(B) at least 25 percent over the program acquisition unit 
     cost for the program as shown in the original Baseline 
     Estimate for the program.
       ``(2) A major defense acquisition program that is a 
     procurement program that experiences a percentage increase in 
     the procurement unit cost of--
       ``(A) at least 10 percent over the procurement unit cost 
     for the program as shown in the current Baseline Estimate for 
     the program; or
       ``(B) at least 25 percent over the procurement unit cost 
     for the program as shown in the original Baseline Estimate 
     for the program.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The terms `program acquisition unit cost' and 
     `procurement unit cost' have the meaning given those terms in 
     section 2432(a) of this title.
       ``(2) The terms `Baseline Estimate' and `procurement 
     program' have the meaning given those terms in section 
     2433(a) of this title.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such title is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 2433 the following new item:

``2433a. Joint Requirements Oversight Council evaluation of programs 
              experiencing certain cost increases.''.

     SEC. 3. MEMBERSHIP OF THE JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT 
                   COUNCIL.

       Section 181(c) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(F) the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
     Technology, and Logistics; and
       ``(G) the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller).'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (3) and (4), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) The Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation shall 
     be an advisor to the Council in the performance of its 
     mission under this section.''.

     SEC. 4. REQUIREMENT OF APPROVAL OF JOINT REQUIREMENTS 
                   OVERSIGHT COUNCIL FOR INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST 
                   AND EVALUATION IN ENVIRONMENT NOT SPECIFIED IN 
                   TEST AND EVALUATION MASTER PLAN.

       Section 2399(b) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (7), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following new 
     paragraph (2):
       ``(2) Initial operational test and evaluation of a major 
     defense acquisition program may not be conducted in an 
     environment other than the environment specified and defined 
     in the test and evaluation master plan (TEMP) concerned 
     without the approval of the Joint Requirements Oversight 
     Council.'';
       (3) in paragraph (4), as redesignated by paragraph (1) of 
     this subsection, by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraph (3)'';
       (4) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)''; and
       (5) in paragraph (6), as so redesignated--
       (A) by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (5)''; and
       (B) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting ``paragraph 
     (3)''.

     SEC. 5. APPROVAL BY PROGRAM MANAGERS OF CERTAIN COST 
                   INCREASES IN CONTRACTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF 
                   PROPERTY.

       (a) Regulations Required.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     prescribe in regulations certain mechanisms that provide cost 
     control measures in contracts for the acquisition of property 
     for the Department of Defense that may be authorized or 
     approved by the program manager.
       (2) Objectives.--In prescribing the regulations, the 
     Secretary shall seek, to the maximum extent practicable, to 
     achieve cost control, the stabilization of requirements, and 
     timely delivery in accordance with contract specifications in 
     the performance of contracts for the acquisition of property 
     for the Department.
       (b) Covered Cost Increases.--The regulations required by 
     subsection (a) shall provide that the cost increases that may 
     be authorized or approved by a program manager under a 
     contract shall be limited to the following:
       (1) A cost increase necessary to secure or enhance safety 
     in the property procured under the contract where the 
     unsecure or unsafe condition or situation (as officially 
     documented by a responsible oversight organization) is 
     attributable to the Government.
       (2) A cost increase necessary for the correction of a 
     defect in the contract that is attributable to the 
     Government, including a defect in contract specifications, a 
     defect in or the unavailability of Government information 
     necessary for the performance of the contract, or a defect in 
     or the unavailability of Government equipment necessary for 
     the performance of the contract.
       (3) A cost increase associated with the unavailability of 
     Government-specified, contractor-furnished equipment or 
     components.
       (4) A cost increase that is necessary for the modification 
     of the property procured under the contract that is critical 
     for the delivery or completion of operational testing.
       (5) A cost increase resulting from a modification of 
     applicable statutes or regulations, but only if--
       (A) funds are specifically made available to implement such 
     modification; or
       (B) in the event funds are not so made available, the 
     service acquisition executive concerned approves the cost 
     increase.
       (6) Any other cost increase approved and funded by an 
     appropriate oversight organization that is the result of new 
     or revised requirements or modifications that would result in 
     an overall reduction in life cycle cost in the property 
     procured under the contract.
       (c) Availability of Change Order Funds for Cost 
     Increases.--The regulations shall provide that amounts 
     appropriated for a program and available for change orders to 
     contracts under the program shall be available for costs 
     authorized or approved under subsection (b).
       (d) Prohibition on Other Cost Increases.--The regulations 
     shall prohibit the authorization or approval by a program 
     manager of any cost increase under a contract not authorized 
     pursuant to subsection (b).
       (e) Cost Reductions.--The regulations shall also authorize 
     a program manager to authorize or approve an administrative 
     change, whether engineering or non-engineering, to a contract 
     for the acquisition of property for the Department if the 
     change will reduce or have no effect on the cost of the 
     contract.
       (f) Prohibition on Use of Certain Cost Reductions for 
     Offset.--The regulations shall prohibit the utilization as an 
     offset for a cost increase in a contract under subsection 
     (b)(6) of any reduction in the cost of the contract resulting 
     from a cost change approved by the program manager, including 
     a reduction attributable to a change authorized under 
     subsection (e).

[[Page 13446]]



     SEC. 6. MILITARY DEPUTIES TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARIES OF THE 
                   MILITARY DEPARTMENTS FOR ACQUISITION MATTERS 
                   AND THE CHIEFS OF STAFF.

       (a) Department of the Army.--
       (1) In general.--There is in the Army a Military Deputy for 
     Acquisition Matters, appointed by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, from among officers in 
     the Army who have significant experience in the areas of 
     acquisition and program management.
       (2) Grade.--The Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters has 
     the grade of lieutenant general.
       (3) Duties.--The Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters 
     shall have the following duties:
       (A) To assist the Assistant Secretary of the Army with 
     responsibility for acquisition matters in the supervision of 
     acquisition matters for the Army.
       (B) To report to the Chief of Staff of the Army regarding 
     such matters.
       (b) Department of the Navy.--
       (1) In general.--There is in the Navy a Naval Deputy for 
     Acquisition Matters, appointed by the President, by and with 
     the advice and consent of the Senate, from among officers in 
     the Navy and Marine Corps who have significant experience in 
     the areas of acquisition and program management.
       (2) Grade.--The Naval Deputy for Acquisition Matters has 
     the grade of vice admiral or lieutenant general.
       (3) Duties.--The Naval Deputy for Acquisition Matters shall 
     have the following duties:
       (A) To assist the Assistant Secretary of the Navy with 
     responsibility for acquisition matters in the supervision of 
     acquisition matters for the Navy.
       (B) To report to the Chief of Naval Operations regarding 
     such matters.
       (c) Department of the Air Force.--
       (1) In general.--There is in the Air Force a Military 
     Deputy for Acquisition Matters, appointed by the President, 
     by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among 
     officers in the Air Force who have significant experience in 
     the areas of acquisition and program management.
       (2) Grade.--The Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters has 
     the grade of lieutenant general.
       (3) Duties.--The Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters 
     shall have the following duties:
       (A) To assist the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force with 
     responsibility for acquisition matters in the supervision of 
     acquisition matters for the Air Force.
       (B) To report to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force 
     regarding such matters.
       (d) Exclusion of Military Deputies From Distribution and 
     Strength in Grade Limitations.--
       (1) Distribution.--Section 525(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(9)(A) An officer while serving in a position specified 
     in subparagraph (B) is in addition to the number that would 
     otherwise be permitted for that officer's armed force for the 
     grade of lieutenant general or vice admiral, as applicable.
       ``(B) A position specified in this subparagraph is each 
     position as follows:
       ``(i) Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters of the Army.
       ``(ii) Naval Deputy for Acquisition Matters of the Navy.
       ``(iii) Military Deputy for Acquisition Matters of the Air 
     Force.''.
       (2) Authorized strength.--Section 526 of such title is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Exclusion of Military Deputies to Assistant 
     Secretaries of the Military Departments for Acquisition 
     Matters.--The limitations of this section do not apply to a 
     general or flag officer who is covered by the exclusion under 
     section 525(b)(9) of this title.''.

     SEC. 7. COMMITTEE ON STRATEGIC INVESTMENT IN MAJOR DEFENSE 
                   ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish 
     within the Department of Defense a committee to ensure the 
     effective allocation within major defense acquisition 
     programs of the financial resources available for such 
     programs.
       (b) Members.--
       (1) In general.--The committee established under subsection 
     (a) shall be composed of the following:
       (A) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
     Technology, and Logistics.
       (B) The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
       (C) The Director of Program Analysis and Evaluation.
       (D) Any other officials of the Department of Defense 
     jointly agreed upon by the Under Secretary and the Vice 
     Chairman.
       (2) Chairs.--The officials referred to in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) of paragraph (1) shall serve as joint chairs of 
     the committee.
       (c) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The committee established under subsection 
     (a) shall, at each point in the acquisition of a major 
     defense acquisition program specified in paragraph (2), 
     determine the most effective allocation among such program of 
     the financial resources available to such program at such 
     point. In making such determinations, the committee shall 
     balance requirements, technological maturities, and available 
     resources under such program utilizing solutions bounded by a 
     time-certain and available resources (commonly referred to as 
     ``bounded solutions''), portfolio management techniques, and 
     other appropriate investment evaluation techniques to 
     identify the most appropriate allocation of financial 
     resources to meet requirements.
       (2) Points within acquisition process.--The points in the 
     acquisition of a major defense acquisition program specified 
     in this paragraph are the points as follows:
       (A) At an appropriate point early in the acquisition 
     jointly specified by the Under Secretary and the Vice 
     Chairman.
       (B) At such other point in the acquisition as the Under 
     Secretary and the Vice Chairman shall jointly specify for 
     purposes of this section or otherwise jointly specify for 
     purposes of the program.
       (d) Major Defense Acquisition Program Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``major defense acquisition program'' means 
     a major defense acquisition program for purposes of chapter 
     144 of title 10, United States Code.

     SEC. 8. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE FOR THE ACQUISITION 
                   OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of 
     the United States shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report on potential modifications of the 
     organization and structure of the Department of Defense for 
     the acquisition of major defense acquisition programs.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the results of a review, conducted by the Comptroller 
     General for purposes of the report, regarding the feasibility 
     and advisability of, at a minimum, the following:
       (1) Establishing system commands within each military 
     department, each of which commands would be headed by a 4-
     star general officer, to whom the program managers and 
     program executive officers for major defense acquisition 
     programs would report.
       (2) Revising the acquisition process for major defense 
     acquisition programs by establishing shorter, more frequent 
     acquisition program milestones.
       (3) Requiring certifications of program status to the 
     defense acquisition executive and Congress prior to milestone 
     approval for major defense acquisition programs.
       (4) Establishing a new office (to be known as the ``Office 
     of Independent Assessment'') to provide independent cost 
     estimates and performance estimates for major defense 
     acquisition programs.
       (5) Establishing a milestone system for major defense 
     acquisition programs utilizing the following milestones (or 
     such other milestones as the Comptroller General considers 
     appropriate for purposes of the review):
       (A) Milestone 0.--The time for the development and approval 
     of a mission need statement for a major defense acquisition 
     program.
       (B) Milestone 1.--The time for the development and approval 
     of a capability need definition for a major defense 
     acquisition program, including development and approval of a 
     certification statement on the characteristics required for 
     the system under the program and a determination of the 
     priorities among such characteristics.
       (C) Milestone 2.--The time or technology development and 
     assessment for a major defense acquisition program, including 
     development and approval of a certification statement on 
     technology maturity of elements under the program.
       (D) Milestone 3.--The time for system development and 
     demonstration for a major defense acquisition program, 
     including development and approval of a certification 
     statement on design proof of concept.
       (E) Milestone 4.--The time for final design, production 
     prototyping, and testing of a major defense acquisition 
     program, including development and approval of a 
     certification statement on cost, performance, and schedule in 
     advance of initiation of low-rate production of the system 
     under the program.
       (F) Milestone 5.--The time for limited production and field 
     testing of the system under a major defense acquisition 
     program.
       (G) Milestone 6.--The time for initiation of full-rate 
     production of the system under a major defense acquisition 
     program.
       (6) Requiring the Milestone Decision Authority for a major 
     defense acquisition program to specify, at the time of 
     Milestone B approval, or Key Decision Point B approval, as 
     applicable, the period of time that will be required to 
     deliver an initial operational capability to the relevant 
     combatant commanders.
       (7) Establishing a materiel solutions process for 
     addressing identified gaps in critical warfighting 
     capabilities, under which process the Under Secretary of 
     Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics circulates 
     among the military departments and appropriate Defense 
     Agencies a request for proposals for technologies and systems 
     to address such gaps.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the review required under 
     subsection (b) for the report required by subsection (a), the 
     Comptroller General shall obtain the views of the following:

[[Page 13447]]

       (1) Senior acquisition officials currently serving in the 
     Department of Defense.
       (2) Individuals who formerly served as senior acquisition 
     officials in the Department of Defense.
       (3) Participants in previous reviews of the organization 
     and structure of the Department of Defense for the 
     acquisition of major weapon systems, including the 
     President's Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management in 
     1986.
       (4) Other experts on the acquisition of major weapon 
     systems.
       (5) Appropriate experts in the Government Accountability 
     Office.

     SEC. 9. CHANGES TO MILESTONE B CERTIFICATIONS.

       Section 2366a of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), and (e) as 
     subsections (c), (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection (b):
       ``(b) Changes to Certification.--(1) The program manager 
     for a major defense acquisition program that has received 
     certification under subsection (a) shall immediately notify 
     the milestone decision authority of any changes to the 
     program that are--
       ``(A) inconsistent with such certification; or
       ``(B) deviate significantly from the material provided to 
     the milestone decision authority in support of such 
     certification.
       ``(2) Upon receipt of information under paragraph (1), the 
     milestone decision authority may withdraw the certification 
     concerned or rescind Milestone B approval (or Key Decision 
     Point B approval in the case of a space program) if the 
     milestone decision authority determines that such action is 
     in the best interest of the national security of the United 
     States.'';
       (3) in subsection (c), as redesignated by paragraph (1)--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The certification''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph (2):
       ``(2) Any information provided to the milestone decision 
     authority pursuant to subsection (b) shall be summarized in 
     the first Selected Acquisition Report submitted under section 
     2432 of this title after such information is received by the 
     milestone decision authority.''; and
       (4) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``subsection (c)'' and inserting ``subsection (d)''.

     SEC. 10. BUSINESS CASE ANALYSIS FOR CERTAIN MAJOR DEFENSE 
                   ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.

       (a) Analysis Before Milestone B Approval.--The milestone 
     decision authority for a major defense acquisition program 
     may not grant Milestone B approval for the program until the 
     milestone decision authority obtains from a federally funded 
     research and development center (FFRDC) a business case 
     analysis for the program meeting the requirements of 
     subsection (c).
       (b) Analysis Following Deviations From Milestone B Approval 
     Certification.--If the milestone decision authority for a 
     major defense acquisition program determines that information 
     provided to the milestone decision authority by the program 
     manager reveals changes to the program that are inconsistent 
     with the certification for Milestone B approval with respect 
     to the program under section 2366a(a) of title 10, United 
     States Code, or that significantly deviate from the material 
     provided to the milestone decision authority in support of 
     such certification, the milestone decision authority shall 
     require the conduct by a federally funded research and 
     development center of a new business case analysis for the 
     program meeting the requirements of subsection (c).
       (c) Elements of Business Case Analysis.--The business case 
     analysis for a major defense acquisition program under this 
     section shall ensure the following:
       (1) That the needs of the user for the system under the 
     program have been accurately defined.
       (2) That alternative approaches to satisfying such needs 
     have been properly analyzed, and that the quantities of the 
     system required are well understood.
       (3) That the system developed or, in the case of a new 
     developmental program, the system to be developed, is 
     producible at a cost that matches the expectations and 
     financial resources of the system user.
       (4) That the developer has the resources to design the 
     system with the features that the user wants and to deliver 
     the system when the user needs the system.
       (d) Submittal to Congress.--Each business case analysis 
     conducted under this section shall be submitted to the 
     congressional defense committees not later than seven days 
     after the date on which such business case analysis is 
     submitted to the milestone decision authority under this 
     section.
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``major defense acquisition program'' means a 
     major defense acquisition program for purposes of chapter 144 
     of title 10, United States Code.
       (2) The term ``Milestone B approval'', with respect to a 
     major defense acquisition program, has the meaning given that 
     term in section 2366(e)(7) of title 10, United States Code.

     SEC. 11. GUIDANCE ON UTILIZATION OF AWARD FEES IN CONTRACTS 
                   UNDER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Regulations Required.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Defense shall prescribe in regulations guidance on the 
     appropriate use of award fees in contracts under Department 
     of Defense acquisition programs.
       (b) Utilization of Objective Criteria in Assessment of 
     Contractor Performance.--
       (1) In general.--The regulations required by subsection (a) 
     shall provide that, to the extent practicable, objective 
     criteria are utilized in the assessment of contractor 
     performance in Department acquisition programs.
       (2) Mixed utilization of objective and subjective 
     criteria.--The regulations shall provide that, in any case in 
     which objective criteria are available for the assessment of 
     contractor performance, the program manager and contracting 
     officer concerned may elect to assess contractor performance 
     through an appropriate mixture of objective criteria and such 
     subjective criteria as the program manager and contracting 
     officer jointly consider appropriate under a contract 
     providing both incentive fees and awards fees, including a 
     cost-plus-incentive/award fee contract or a fixed-price-
     incentive/award fee contract.
       (3) Utilization of subjective criteria.--
       (A) In general.--The regulations shall provide that, if it 
     is determined that objective criteria do not exist and it is 
     appropriate to use a cost-plus-award-fee contract, the head 
     of the contracting activity concerned shall find that the 
     work to be performed under the contract is such that it is 
     not feasible or effective to establish objective incentive 
     criteria for the contract.
       (B) Delegation.--The authority to make a determination and 
     finding under subparagraph (A) may be delegated by the head 
     of a contracting activity but only to an official in the 
     contracting activity who is one level lower in the 
     contracting chain of authority than the head of the 
     contracting activity.
       (c) Schedule for Award Fees.--
       (1) In general.--The regulations required by subsection (a) 
     shall set forth a schedule of ratings of contractor 
     performance for award fees in contracts under Department 
     acquisition programs, including--
       (A) a range of authorized ratings;
       (B) the contractor performance required for each authorized 
     rating; and
       (C) the percentage of potential award fees payable as a 
     result of the achievement of each authorized rating.
       (2) Authorized ratings and performance.--The schedule shall 
     set forth a range of authorized ratings and associated 
     contractor performance as follows:
       (A) Outstanding, for a contractor who meets--
       (i) the minimum essential requirements of the contract; and
       (ii) at least 90 percent of the criteria for the award of 
     award fees under the contract.
       (B) Excellent, for a contractor who meets--
       (i) the minimum essential requirements of the contract; and
       (ii) at least 75 percent of the criteria for the award of 
     award fees under the contract.
       (C) Good, for a contractor who meets--
       (i) the minimum essential requirements under the contract; 
     and
       (ii) at least 50 percent of the criteria for the award of 
     award fees under the contract.
       (D) Satisfactory, for a contractor who meets the minimum 
     essential requirements under the contract but does not meet 
     at least 50 percent of the criteria for the award of award 
     fees under the contract.
       (E) Unsatisfactory, for a contractor who does not meet the 
     minimum essential requirements under the contract.
       (3) Award fees payable.--The schedule shall provide that 
     the amount payable from amounts available for the payment of 
     award fees under a contract (commonly referred to as an 
     ``award fee pool'') to a contractor who achieves a particular 
     rating under the schedule shall be the percentage of such 
     amounts, as determined appropriate by the contracting 
     officer, from the percentages as follows:
       (A) In the case of outstanding, 90 percent to 100 percent.
       (B) In the case of excellent, 75 percent to 90 percent.
       (C) In the case of good, 50 percent to 75 percent.
       (D) In the case of satisfactory, not more than 50 percent.
       (E) In the case of unsatisfactory, 0 percent.
       (d) Establishment of Award Fee Requirements.--The 
     regulations required by subsection (a) shall provide that the 
     requirements to be satisfied for the award of award fees 
     under a contract shall be determined by the contracting 
     officer, in consultation with the program manager concerned 
     and the fee determining official for the contract. The 
     specification of such requirements in the contract may be 
     referred to as the ``Award Fee Plan'' for the contract.
       (e) Rollover of Award Fees to Later Award Periods.--
       (1) In general.--The regulations required by subsection (a) 
     shall establish a negative presumption against the rollover 
     of amounts

[[Page 13448]]

     available for the payment of award fees under a contract from 
     one award fee period under the contract to another award fee 
     period under the contract unless the rollover of such amounts 
     is specifically set forth in the acquisition strategy under 
     which the contract is entered into.
       (2) Limitation on amount of rollover.--The regulations 
     shall set forth specific limits on the amount available for 
     the payment of award fees under a contract that may be rolled 
     over from one award fee period under the contract to another 
     award fee period under the contract. Such limits may be 
     expressed as specific dollar amounts or as percentages of the 
     amount available for payment of award fees under the contract 
     concerned.
       (3) Documentation of rollover.--The regulations shall 
     require that any determination by the fee determining 
     official to roll over amounts available for the payment of 
     award fees under a contract from one award fee period under 
     the contract to another award fee period under the contract 
     shall be included in writing in the contract file for the 
     contract.

     SEC. 12. SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS UNDER MULTIYEAR CONTRACTS.

       (a) Definition in Regulations of Substantial Savings Under 
     Multiyear Contracts.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     modify the regulations prescribed pursuant to subsection 
     (b)(2)(A) of section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, 
     to define the term ``substantial savings'' for purposes of 
     subsection (a)(1) of such section. Such regulations shall 
     specify the following:
       (A) Savings that exceed 10 percent of the total anticipated 
     costs of carrying out a program through annual contracts 
     shall be considered to be substantial.
       (B) Savings that exceed 8 percent of the total anticipated 
     costs of carrying out a program through annual contracts, but 
     do not exceed 10 percent of such costs, shall not be 
     considered to be substantial unless the following conditions 
     are satisfied:
       (i) The program has not breached any threshold under 
     section 2433 of title 10, United States Code, during the two-
     year period ending on the date on which the military 
     department concerned first submits to Congress a multiyear 
     procurement proposal with respect to the program.
       (ii) The program is estimated to save at least $500,000,000 
     under a multiyear contract, as compared to annual contracts.
       (C) Savings that do not exceed 8 percent of the total 
     anticipated costs of carrying out a program through annual 
     contracts shall not be considered to be substantial.
       (2) Determination of savings.--The regulations required 
     under this subsection shall require that the determination of 
     the amount of savings to be achieved under a multiyear 
     contract, including whether or not such savings are treatable 
     as substantial savings for purposes of subsection (a)(1) of 
     section 2306b of title 10, United States Code, shall be made 
     by the Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) of the 
     Department of Defense.
       (3) Effective date.--The modification required by paragraph 
     (1) shall apply with regard to any multiyear contract that is 
     authorized after the date that is 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Reports on Savings Achieved.--
       (1) Reports required.--Not later than January 15 of 2008, 
     2009, and 2010, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     congressional defense committees a report on the savings 
     achieved through the use of multiyear contracts that were 
     entered under the authority of section 2306b of title 10, 
     United States Code, and the performance of which was 
     completed in the preceding fiscal year.
       (2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall 
     specify, for each multiyear contract covered by such report--
       (A) the savings that the Department of Defense estimated it 
     would achieve through the use of the multiyear contract at 
     the time such contract was awarded; and
       (B) the best estimate of the Department on the savings 
     actually achieved under such contract.

     SEC. 13. INVESTMENT STRATEGY FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees an 
     investment strategy for the allocation of funds and other 
     resources among major defense acquisition programs.
       (b) Elements.--The strategy required by subsection (a) 
     shall do the following:
       (1) Establish priorities among needed capabilities under 
     major defense acquisition programs, and to assess the 
     resources (including funds, technologies, time, and 
     personnel) needed to achieve such capabilities.
       (2) Balance cost, schedule, and requirements for major 
     defense acquisition programs to ensure the most efficient use 
     of Department of Defense resources.
       (3) Ensure that the budget, requirements, and acquisition 
     processes of the Department of Defense work in a 
     complementary manner to achieve desired results.
       (c) Recommendations.--In submitting the strategy required 
     by subsection (a), the Secretary shall include any 
     recommendations, including recommendations for legislative 
     action, that the Secretary considers appropriate to implement 
     the strategy.
       (d) Utilization for Budget Purposes.--The Secretary shall 
     utilize the strategy required by subsection (a) in developing 
     requests for funding and other resources to be allocated to 
     major defense acquisition programs under the budget of the 
     President to be submitted to Congress each fiscal year under 
     section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.
       (e) Current Programs Beyond Milestone B Approval.--Pending 
     completion of the strategy required by subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall, to the extent practicable, establish 
     priorities in the allocation of funds and other resources for 
     major defense acquisition programs that have Milestone B 
     approval in order to ensure the acquisition of items under 
     such programs in the most cost-effective and efficient 
     manner.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``major defense acquisition program'' has the 
     meaning given that term in section 2430 of title 10, United 
     States Code.
       (2) The term ``Milestone B approval'' has the meaning given 
     that term in section 2366(e)(7) of title 10, United States 
     Code.

     SEC. 14. ETHICS COMPLIANCE BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   CONTRACTORS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     prescribe in regulations a requirement that a contracting 
     officer of the Department of Defense may not determine a 
     contractor to be responsible for purposes of the award of a 
     new covered contract for the Department, or an agency or 
     component of the Department, unless the entity to be awarded 
     the contract has in place, by the deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), an internal ethics compliance program, 
     including a code of ethics and internal controls, to 
     facilitate the timely detection and disclosure of improper 
     conduct in connection with the award or performance of the 
     covered contract and to ensure that appropriate corrective 
     action is taken with respect to such conduct.
       (b) Elements of Ethics Compliance Program.--Each ethics 
     compliance program required of a contractor under subsection 
     (a) shall include the following:
       (1) Requirements for periodic reviews of the program for 
     which the covered contract concerned is awarded to ensure 
     compliance of contractor personnel with applicable Government 
     contracting requirements, including laws, regulations, and 
     contractual requirements.
       (2) Internal reporting mechanisms, such as a hot-line, for 
     contractor personnel to report suspected improper conduct 
     among contractor personnel.
       (3) Audits of the program for which the covered contract 
     concerned is awarded.
       (4) Mechanisms for disciplinary actions against contractor 
     personnel found to have engaged in improper conduct, 
     including the exclusion of such personnel from the exercise 
     of substantial authority.
       (5) Mechanisms for the reporting to appropriate Government 
     officials, including the contracting officer and the Office 
     of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, of 
     suspected improper conduct among contractor personnel, 
     including suspected conduct involving corruption of a 
     Government official or individual acting on behalf of the 
     Government, not later than 30 days after the date of 
     discovery of such suspected conduct.
       (6) Mechanisms to ensure full cooperation with Government 
     officials responsible for investigating suspected improper 
     conduct among contractor personnel and for taking corrective 
     actions.
       (7) Mechanisms to ensure the recurring provision of 
     training to contractor personnel on the requirements and 
     mechanisms of the program.
       (8) Mechanisms to ensure the oversight of the program by 
     contractor personnel with substantial authority within the 
     contractor.
       (c) Deadline for Program.--The deadline specified in this 
     subsection for a contractor having in place an ethics 
     compliance program required under subsection (a) for purposes 
     of a covered contract is 30 days after the date of the award 
     of the contract.
       (d) Determination of Existence of Program.--In determining 
     whether or not contractor has in place an ethics compliance 
     program required under subsection (a), a contracting officer 
     of the Department may utilize the assistance of the Office of 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
       (e) Suspension or Debarment.--The regulations prescribed 
     under subsection (a) shall provide that any contractor under 
     a covered contract whose personnel are determined not to have 
     reported suspected improper conduct in accordance with the 
     requirements and mechanisms of the ethics compliance program 
     concerned may, at the election of the Secretary of Defense, 
     be suspended from the contract or debarred from further 
     contracting with the Department of Defense.
       (f) Covered Contract Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``covered contract'' means any contract to be awarded to a 
     contractor

[[Page 13449]]

     of the Department of Defense if, in the year before the 
     contract is to be awarded, the total amount of contracts of 
     the contractor with the Federal Government exceeded 
     $5,000,000.

     SEC. 15. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON TOTAL 
                   OWNERSHIP COSTS AND READINESS RATES FOR MAJOR 
                   WEAPON SYSTEMS.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     on the extent of the implementation of the recommendations 
     set forth in the February 2003 report of the Government 
     Accountability Office entitled ``Setting Requirements 
     Differently Could Reduce Weapon Systems' Total Ownership 
     Costs''.
       (b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) For each recommendation described in subsection (a) 
     that has been implemented, or that the Secretary plans to 
     implement--
       (A) a summary of all actions that have been taken to 
     implement such recommendation; and
       (B) a schedule, with specific milestones, for completing 
     the implementation of such recommendation.
       (2) For each recommendation that the Secretary has not 
     implemented and does not plan to implement--
       (A) the reasons for the decision not to implement such 
     recommendation; and
       (B) a summary of any alternative actions the Secretary 
     plans to take to address the purposes underlying such 
     recommendation.
       (3) A summary of any additional actions the Secretary has 
     taken or plans to take to ensure that total ownership cost is 
     appropriately considered in the requirements process for 
     major weapon systems.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
  S. 35. A bill to amend section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and 
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 35

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Western Hemisphere Traveler 
     Improvement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. CERTIFICATIONS.

       Section 7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (v)--
       (i) by striking ``process'' and inserting ``read''; and
       (ii) inserting ``at all ports of entry'' after 
     ``installed'';
       (B) in clause (vi), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (C) in clause (vii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(viii) a pilot program in which not fewer than 1 State 
     has been initiated and evaluated to determine if an enhanced 
     driver's license, which is machine-readable and tamper-proof, 
     not valid for certification of citizenship for any purpose 
     other than admission into the United States from Canada, and 
     issued by such State to an individual, may permit the 
     individual to use the individual's driver's license to meet 
     the documentation requirements under subparagraph (A) for 
     entry into the United States from Canada at the land and sea 
     ports of entry;
       ``(ix) the report described in subparagraph (C) has been 
     submitted to the appropriate congressional committees;
       ``(x) a study has been conducted to determine the number of 
     passports and passport cards that will be issued as a 
     consequence of the documentation requirements under 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(xi) sufficient passport adjudication personnel have been 
     hired or contracted--

       ``(I) to accommodate--

       ``(aa) increased demand for passports as a consequence of 
     the documentation requirements under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(bb) a surge in such demand during seasonal peak travel 
     times; and

       ``(II) to ensure that the time required to issue a passport 
     or passport card is not anticipated to exceed 8 weeks.''; and

       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the initiation 
     of the pilot program described in subparagraph (B)(viii), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State 
     shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a 
     report, which includes--
       ``(i) an analysis of the impact of the pilot program on 
     national security;
       ``(ii) recommendations on how to expand the pilot program 
     to other States;
       ``(iii) any appropriate statutory changes to facilitate the 
     expansion of the pilot program to additional States and to 
     citizens of Canada;
       ``(iv) a plan to scan individuals participating in the 
     pilot program against United States terrorist watch lists;
       ``(v) an evaluation of and recommendations for the type of 
     machine-readable technology that should be used in enhanced 
     driver's licenses, based on individual privacy considerations 
     and the costs and feasibility of incorporating any new 
     technology into existing driver's licenses;
       ``(vi) recommendations for improving the pilot program; and
       ``(vii) an analysis of any cost savings for a citizen of 
     the United States participating in an enhanced driver's 
     license program as compared with participating in an 
     alternative program.''.

     SEC. 3. SPECIAL RULE FOR MINORS.

       Section 7209(b) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) Special rule for minors.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     permit an individual to enter the United States without 
     providing any evidence of citizenship if the individual--
       ``(A)(i) is less than 16 years old;
       ``(ii) is accompanied by the individual's legal guardian;
       ``(iii) is entering the United States from Canada or 
     Mexico;
       ``(iv) is a citizen of the United States or Canada; and
       ``(v) provides a birth certificate; or
       ``(B)(i) is less than 18 years old;
       ``(ii) is traveling under adult supervision with a public 
     or private school group, religious group, social or cultural 
     organization, or team associated with a youth athletics 
     organization; and
       ``(iii) provides a birth certificate.''.

     SEC. 4. TRAVEL FACILITATION INITIATIVES.

       Section 7209 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism 
     Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-458; 8 U.S.C. 1185 
     note) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsections:
       ``(e) State Driver's License and Identification Card 
     Enrollment Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and not later than 180 days after the submission of the 
     report described in subsection (b)(1)(C), the Secretary of 
     State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue 
     regulations to establish a State Driver's License and 
     Identity Card Enrollment Program as described in this 
     subsection (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as the 
     `Program') and which allows the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to enter into a memorandum of understanding with an 
     appropriate official of each State that elects to participate 
     in the Program.
       ``(2) Purpose.--The purpose of the Program is to permit a 
     citizen of the United States who produces a driver's license 
     or identity card that meets the requirements of paragraph (3) 
     or a citizen of Canada who produces a document described in 
     paragraph (4) to enter the United States from Canada by land 
     or sea without providing any other documentation or evidence 
     of citizenship.
       ``(3) Admission of citizens of the united states.--A 
     driver's license or identity card meets the requirements of 
     this paragraph if--
       ``(A) the license or card--
       ``(i) was issued by a State that is participating in the 
     Program; and
       ``(ii) is tamper-proof and machine readable; and
       ``(B) the State that issued the license or card--
       ``(i) has a mechanism to verify the United States 
     citizenship status of an applicant for such a license or 
     card;
       ``(ii) does not require an individual to include the 
     individual's citizenship status on such a license or card; 
     and
       ``(iii) manages all information regarding an applicant's 
     United States citizenship status in the same manner as such 
     information collected through the United States passport 
     application process and prohibits any other use or 
     distribution of such information.
       ``(4) Admission of citizens of canada.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, if the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security determine that an identity document issued by the 
     Government of Canada or by the Government of a Province or 
     Territory of Canada meets security and information 
     requirements comparable to the requirements for a driver's 
     license or identity card described in paragraph (3), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall permit a citizen of 
     Canada to enter the United States from Canada using such a 
     document without providing any other documentation or 
     evidence of Canadian citizenship.
       ``(B) Technology standards.--The Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall work, to the maximum extent possible, to 
     ensure that an identification document issued by Canada that 
     permits entry into the United States under subparagraph (A) 
     utilizes technology similar to the technology utilized by 
     identification documents issued by the United States or any 
     State.

[[Page 13450]]

       ``(5) Authority to expand.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security may expand the Program to permit an 
     individual to enter the United States--
       ``(A) from a country other than Canada; or
       ``(B) using evidence of citizenship other than a driver's 
     license or identity card described in paragraph (3) or a 
     document described in paragraph (4).
       ``(6) Relationship to other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     subsection shall have the effect of creating a national 
     identity card or a certification of citizenship for any 
     purpose other than admission into the United States as 
     described in this subsection.
       ``(7) State defined.--In this subsection, the term `State' 
     means any of the several States of the United States, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, Guam, 
     the Virgin Islands of the United States, or any other 
     territory or possession of the United States.
       ``(f) Waiver for Intrastate Travel.--The Secretary of 
     Homeland Security shall accept a birth certificate as proof 
     of citizenship for any United States citizen who is traveling 
     directly from one part of a State to a noncontiguous part of 
     that State through Canada, if such citizen cannot travel by 
     land to such part of the State without traveling through 
     Canada, and such travel in Canada is limited to no more than 
     2 hours.
       ``(g) Waiver of Pass Card and Passport Execution Fees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, during the 2-year period beginning on the date on which 
     the Secretary of Homeland Security publishes a final rule in 
     the Federal Register to carry out subsection (b), the 
     Secretary of State shall--
       ``(A) designate 1 facility in each city or port of entry 
     designated under paragraph (2), including a State Department 
     of Motor Vehicles facility located in such city or port of 
     entry if the Secretary determines appropriate, in which a 
     passport or passport card may be procured without an 
     execution fee during such period; and
       ``(B) develop not fewer than 6 mobile enrollment teams 
     that--
       ``(i) are able to issue passports or other identity 
     documents issued by the Secretary of State without an 
     execution fee during such period;
       ``(ii) are operated along the northern and southern borders 
     of the United States; and
       ``(iii) focus on providing passports and other such 
     documents to citizens of the United States who live in areas 
     of the United States that are near such an international 
     border and that have relatively low population density.
       ``(2) Designation of cities and ports of entry.--The 
     Secretary of State shall designate cities and ports of entry 
     for purposes of paragraph (1)(A) as follows:
       ``(A) The Secretary shall designate not fewer than 3 cities 
     or ports of entry that are 100 miles or less from the 
     northern border of the United States.
       ``(B) The Secretary shall designate not fewer than 3 cities 
     or ports of entry that are 100 miles or less from the 
     southern border of the United States.
       ``(h) Cost-Benefit Analysis.--Prior to publishing a final 
     rule in the Federal Register to carry out subsection (b), the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security shall conduct a complete cost-
     benefit analysis of carrying out this section. Such analysis 
     shall include analysis of--
       ``(1) any potential costs of carrying out this section on 
     trade, travel, and the tourism industry; and
       ``(2) any potential savings that would result from the 
     implementation of the State Driver's License and Identity 
     Card Enrollment Program established under subsection (e) as 
     an alternative to passports and passport cards.
       ``(i) Report.--During the 2-year period beginning on the 
     date that is the 3 months after the date on which the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security begins implementation of 
     subsection (b)(1)--
       ``(1) the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report not less 
     than once every 3 months on--
       ``(A) the average delay at border crossings; and
       ``(B) the average processing time for a NEXUS card, FAST 
     card, or SENTRI card; and
       ``(2) the Secretary of State shall submit to the 
     appropriate congressional committees a report not less than 
     once every 3 months on the average processing time for a 
     passport or passport card.
       ``(j) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In 
     this section, the term `appropriate congressional committees' 
     means--
       ``(1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
       ``(2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives.''.

     SEC. 5. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
                   WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE.

       The intent of Congress in enacting section 546 of the 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 
     (Public Law 109-295; 120 Stat. 1386) was to prevent the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing the plan 
     described in section 7209(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform 
     and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note) 
     before the earlier of June 1, 2009, or the date on which the 
     Secretary certifies to Congress that an alternative travel 
     document, known as a passport card, has been developed and 
     widely distributed to eligible citizens of the United States.

     SEC. 6. PASSPORT PROCESSING STAFF AUTHORITIES.

       (a) Reemployment of Civil Service Annuitants.--Section 
     61(a) of the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 
     (22 U.S.C. 2733(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``To facilitate'' and all 
     that follows through ``, the Secretary'' and inserting ``The 
     Secretary''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2008'' and inserting 
     ``2010''.
       (b) Reemployment of Foreign Service Annuitants.--Section 
     824(g) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4064(g)) 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``to facilitate'' and 
     all that follows through ``Afghanistan,''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2008'' and inserting 
     ``2010''.

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall 
     submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report 
     on the adequacy of the infrastructure of the United States to 
     manage cross-border travel associated with the NEXUS, FAST, 
     and SENTRI programs. Such report shall include consideration 
     of--
       (1) the ability of frequent travelers to access dedicated 
     lanes for such travel;
       (2) the total time required for border crossing, including 
     time spent prior to ports of entry;
       (3) the frequency, adequacy of facilities and any 
     additional delays associated with secondary inspections; and
       (4) the adequacy of readers to rapidly read identity 
     documents of such individuals.
       (b) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee 
     on the Judiciary of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Appropriations, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     House of Representatives.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mrs. Hutchison):
  S. 1445. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to direct the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish, promote, and 
support a comprehensive prevention, research, and medical management 
referral program for hepatitis C virus infection; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is a privilege to join my colleague 
Senator Hutchison in introducing the Hepatitis C Epidemic Control and 
Prevention Act of 2007. Senator Hutchison's leadership has been 
essential in developing this legislation, which will encourage programs 
for hepatitis C across the country similar to the programs that have 
been so effective in Texas. Our goal is to expand and improve health 
education, screening, and treatment to deal more effectively with the 
epidemic of hepatitis C.
  Hepatitis C is a life-threatening disease caused by a virus and is 
the most common chronic, blood-borne infection in the United States. An 
estimated 5 million people, almost 2 percent of the population, are now 
infected with the hepatitis C virus. More than half a million of these 
Americans are suffering from chronic infection, and 30,000 more are 
infected every year.
  Those infected come from all walks of life, and their numbers are 
growing fast. People at greatest risk include emergency service 
personnel, veterans, health care workers, and intravenous drug and 
methamphetamine users. Hepatitis C also disproportionately affects 
medically underserved populations, including African Americans, Native 
Americans, persons of Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Island descent, and the 
homeless.
  It is truly a ``silent'' epidemic since the vast majority of these 
individuals

[[Page 13451]]

are unaware of their infection. Millions are not receiving the care 
that could slow the progression of the disease or even cure it. Those 
who are not aware of their infection are less likely to take 
precautions against spreading the disease to others. Unlike the 
hepatitis A and B viruses, there is no vaccine currently available to 
prevent hepatitis C infection. It is critical to improve the screening 
process, so that everyone infected can be identified, obtain treatment, 
and learn healthier behavior.
  The infection has serious health effects. It can cause liver disease, 
including cirrhosis and liver cancer, and is the leading cause of adult 
liver transplants. Chronic liver disease, most of which is caused by 
this virus, is now the most common cause of death among persons 
infected with HIV. In addition to the human costs, the disease has 
massive financial implications. Direct medical costs associated with 
care are alone expected to exceed $1 billion a year by 2010, and those 
costs will undoubtedly increase without better prevention and treatment 
programs.
  Greater Federal investment will play a critical role in reversing 
this silent epidemic. Our bill will increase public awareness of the 
dangers of hepatitis C, and make testing widely available. For those 
already infected, it will provide counseling, referrals, and 
vaccination against hepatitis A and B and other infectious diseases. It 
will also support research, including the development of a vaccine 
against hepatitis C. It also supports increased hepatitis C 
surveillance activities by the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, and creates hepatitis C coordinators to provide technical 
assistance and training to State public health agencies.
  This bill will have a major impact on the lives of millions of 
Americans who are infected by hepatitis C, and the families and loved 
ones who care for them. I look forward to working closely with my 
colleagues to act quickly to pass this needed legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. 
        Webb):
  S. 1446. A bill to amend the National Capital Transportation Act of 
1969 to authorize additional Federal contributions for maintaining and 
improving the transit system of the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to help 
sustain the Federal Government's longstanding commitment to the 
Washington Metropolitan area's Metrorail system. The National Capital 
Transportation Amendments Act of 2007 authorizes a total of 
$1,500,000,000 in matching Federal funds over the next 10 years to 
maintain and improve America's public transit system. It is a companion 
to a measure introduced in the House by Representative Tom Davis, with 
strong regional and bipartisan support, and is nearly identical to the 
legislation which was approved by the House in the 109th Congress.
  In March 2006, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 
celebrated the 30th anniversary of passenger service on the Metrorail 
system. Since service first began in 1976, Metrorail has grown from a 
4.6-mile, five-station, 22,000-passenger system into the Nation's 
second busiest rapid transit operation. Today the Metrorail system 
consists of 106.3 miles, 86 stations and carries more than 100 million 
passengers a year. The Metrorail system provides a unified and 
coordinated transportation system for the region, enhances mobility for 
the millions of residents, visitors and the Federal workforce in the 
region, promotes orderly growth and development of the region, enhances 
our environment, and preserves the beauty and dignity of our Nation's 
Capital. It is also an example of an unparalleled partnership that 
spans every level of government from city to State to Federal.
  As the largest employer in this region, the Federal Government has 
had a longstanding and unique responsibility to support the Metro 
system. This special responsibility was recognized more than 40 years 
ago in the National Capital Transportation Act of 1960, when Congress 
found that ``an improved transportation system for the National Capital 
region is essential for the continued and effective performance of the 
functions of the Government of the United States.'' Today more than a 
third of Federal employees in this region rely on Metrorail to get to 
work, and at rush hour, more than 40 percent of Metro's riders are 
Federal employees. The service that WMATA provides is also a critical 
component of Federal emergency evacuation plans for the region. The 
Federal Government's interest in Metro is ``unique and enduring.''
  It took extraordinary perseverance and effort to build the 106-mile 
Metorail system. From its origins in legislation first approved by the 
Congress during the Eisenhower Administration, three major statutes, 
the National Capital Transportation Act of 1969, the National Capital 
Transportation amendments of 1979, and the National Capital 
Transportation Amendments of 1990 were enacted to provide Federal and 
matching local funds for construction of the system. In addition, in 
ISTEA, TEA-21 and most-recently in SAFETEA-LU, we made the Metrorail 
eligible for millions of dollars in Federal funds annually to maintain 
and modernize the system, and provided an additional $104 million for 
WMATA's procurement of 52 rail cars and construction of upgrades to 
traction power equipment on 20 stations to allow the transit agency to 
expand many of its trains from 6 to 8 cars.
  But the system is aging and has been experiencing increasing 
incidents of equipment breakdowns, delays in scheduled service, and 
unprecedented crowding on trains. In 2004, WMATA released a ``Metro 
Matters'' report which found a $1.5 billion shortfall in funding over 6 
years to meet WMATA's capital and operating needs. A Blue Ribbon Panel, 
sponsored by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the 
Greater Washington Board of Trade and the Federal City Council 
published a report a year later which concluded that WMATA faces an 
average annual operating and capital shortfall of approximately $300 
million between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2015.
  This legislation seeks to provide additional Federal funds to help 
close this gap. To be eligible for any Federals funds that may be 
appropriated annually under this legislation, the District of Columbia, 
the State of Maryland, and the Commonwealth of Virginia must first 
enact the required Compact amendments and either establish or use an 
existing dedicated funding source, such as Maryland's Transportation 
Trust fund, to provide the local matching funds. The legislation is 
still subject to the annual appropriations process and it is my hope 
that federal funding authorized under this Act will be forthcoming in 
future years. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation.
  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. 1446

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007''.
       (b) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Metro, the public transit system of the Washington 
     metropolitan area, is essential for the continued and 
     effective performance of the functions of the Federal 
     Government, and for the orderly movement of people during 
     major events and times of regional or national emergency.
       (2) On 3 occasions, Congress has authorized appropriations 
     for the construction and capital improvement needs of the 
     Metrorail system.
       (3) Additional funding is required to protect these 
     previous Federal investments and ensure the continued 
     functionality and viability of the original 103-mile 
     Metrorail system.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR 
                   WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM.

       The National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (sec. 9-
     1111.01 et seq., D.C. Official

[[Page 13452]]

     Code) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:


  ``AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION FOR CAPITAL AND 
                    PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS

       ``Sec. 18.  (a) Authorization.--Subject to the succeeding 
     provisions of this section, the Secretary of Transportation 
     is authorized to make grants to the Transit Authority, in 
     addition to the contributions authorized under sections 3, 
     14, and 17, for the purpose of financing in part the capital 
     and preventive maintenance projects included in the Capital 
     Improvement Program approved by the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--The Federal grants made pursuant to 
     the authorization under this section shall be subject to the 
     following limitations and conditions:
       ``(1) The work for which such Federal grants are authorized 
     shall be subject to the provisions of the Compact (consistent 
     with the amendments to the Compact described in subsection 
     (d)).
       ``(2) Each such Federal grant shall be for 50 percent of 
     the net project cost of the project involved, and shall be 
     provided in cash from sources other than Federal funds or 
     revenues from the operation of public mass transportation 
     systems. Consistent with the terms of the amendment to the 
     Compact described in subsection (d)(1), any funds so provided 
     shall be solely from undistributed cash surpluses, 
     replacement or depreciation funds or reserves available in 
     cash, or new capital.
       ``(c) Applicability of Requirements for Mass Transportation 
     Capital Projects Receiving Funds Under Federal Transportation 
     Law.--Except as specifically provided in this section, the 
     use of any amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization 
     under this section shall be subject to the requirements 
     applicable to capital projects for which funds are provided 
     under chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, except to 
     the extent that the Secretary of Transportation determines 
     that the requirements are inconsistent with the purposes of 
     this section.
       ``(d) Amendments to Compact.--No amounts may be provided to 
     the Transit Authority pursuant to the authorization under 
     this section until the Transit Authority notifies the 
     Secretary of Transportation that each of the following 
     amendments to the Compact (and any further amendments which 
     may be required to implement such amendments) have taken 
     effect:
       ``(1)(A) An amendment requiring that all payments by the 
     local signatory governments for the Transit Authority for the 
     purpose of matching any Federal funds appropriated in any 
     given year authorized under subsection (a) for the cost of 
     operating and maintaining the adopted regional system are 
     made from amounts derived from dedicated funding sources.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, the term `dedicated 
     funding source' means any source of funding which is 
     earmarked or required under State or local law to be used to 
     match Federal appropriations authorized under this Act for 
     payments to the Transit Authority.
       ``(2) An amendment establishing the Office of the Inspector 
     General of the Transit Authority in accordance with section 3 
     of the National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 
     2007.
       ``(3) An amendment expanding the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority to include 4 additional Directors appointed 
     by the Administrator of General Services, of whom 2 shall be 
     nonvoting and 2 shall be voting, and requiring one of the 
     voting members so appointed to be a regular passenger and 
     customer of the bus or rail service of the Transit Authority.
       ``(e) Amount.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary of Transportation for grants under this section 
     an aggregate amount not to exceed $1,500,000,000 to be 
     available in increments over 10 fiscal years beginning in 
     fiscal year 2009, or until expended.
       ``(f) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization under this section--
       ``(1) shall remain available until expended; and
       ``(2) shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, amounts 
     available to the Transit Authority under chapter 53 of title 
     49, United States Code, or any other provision of law.''.

     SEC. 3. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 
                   INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       (a) Establishment of Office.--
       (1) In general.--The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
     Authority (hereafter referred to as the ``Transit 
     Authority'') shall establish in the Transit Authority the 
     Office of the Inspector General (hereafter in this section 
     referred to as the ``Office''), headed by the Inspector 
     General of the Transit Authority (hereafter in this section 
     referred to as the ``Inspector General'').
       (2) Definition.--In paragraph (1), the ``Washington 
     Metropolitan Area Transit Authority'' means the Authority 
     established under Article III of the Washington Metropolitan 
     Area Transit Authority Compact (Public Law 89-774).
       (b) Inspector General.--
       (1) Appointment.--The Inspector General shall be appointed 
     by the vote of a majority of the Board of Directors of the 
     Transit Authority, and shall be appointed without regard to 
     political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity 
     and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial 
     analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or 
     investigations, as well as familiarity or experience with the 
     operation of transit systems.
       (2) Term of service.--The Inspector General shall serve for 
     a term of 5 years, and an individual serving as Inspector 
     General may be reappointed for not more than 2 additional 
     terms.
       (3) Removal.--The Inspector General may be removed from 
     office prior to the expiration of his term only by the 
     unanimous vote of all of the members of the Board of 
     Directors of the Transit Authority, and the Board shall 
     communicate the reasons for any such removal to the Governor 
     of Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, the Mayor of the 
     District of Columbia, the chair of the Committee on 
     Government Reform of the House of Representatives, and the 
     chair of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate.
       (c) Duties.--
       (1) Applicability of duties of inspector general of 
     executive branch establishment.--The Inspector General shall 
     carry out the same duties and responsibilities with respect 
     to the Transit Authority as an Inspector General of an 
     establishment carries out with respect to an establishment 
     under section 4 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 
     U.S.C. App. 4), under the same terms and conditions which 
     apply under such section.
       (2) Conducting annual audit of financial statements.--The 
     Inspector General shall be responsible for conducting the 
     annual audit of the financial accounts of the Transit 
     Authority, either directly or by contract with an independent 
     external auditor selected by the Inspector General.
       (3) Reports.--
       (A) Semiannual reports to transit authority.--The Inspector 
     General shall prepare and submit semiannual reports 
     summarizing the activities of the Office in the same manner, 
     and in accordance with the same deadlines, terms, and 
     conditions, as an Inspector General of an establishment under 
     section 5 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 
     5). For purposes of applying section 5 of such Act to the 
     Inspector General, the Board of Directors of the Transit 
     Authority shall be considered the head of the establishment, 
     except that the Inspector General shall transmit to the 
     General Manager of the Transit Authority a copy of any report 
     submitted to the Board pursuant to this paragraph.
       (B) Annual reports to local signatory governments and 
     congress.--Not later than January 15 of each year, the 
     Inspector General shall prepare and submit a report 
     summarizing the activities of the Office during the previous 
     year, and shall submit such reports to the Governor of 
     Maryland, the Governor of Virginia, the Mayor of the District 
     of Columbia, the chair of the Committee on Government Reform 
     of the House of Representatives, and the chair of the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate.
       (4) Investigations of complaints of employees and 
     members.--
       (A) Authority.--The Inspector General may receive and 
     investigate complaints or information from an employee or 
     member of the Transit Authority concerning the possible 
     existence of an activity constituting a violation of law, 
     rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of 
     funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific 
     danger to the public health and safety.
       (B) Nondisclosure.--The Inspector General shall not, after 
     receipt of a complaint or information from an employee or 
     member, disclose the identity of the employee or member 
     without the consent of the employee or member, unless the 
     Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable 
     during the course of the investigation.
       (C) Prohibiting retaliation.--An employee or member of the 
     Transit Authority who has authority to take, direct others to 
     take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, 
     with respect to such authority, take or threaten to take any 
     action against any employee or member as a reprisal for 
     making a complaint or disclosing information to the Inspector 
     General, unless the complaint was made or the information 
     disclosed with the knowledge that it was false or with 
     willful disregard for its truth or falsity.
       (5) Independence in carrying out duties.--Neither the Board 
     of Directors of the Transit Authority, the General Manager of 
     the Transit Authority, nor any other member or employee of 
     the Transit Authority may prevent or prohibit the Inspector 
     General from carrying out any of the duties or 
     responsibilities assigned to the Inspector General under this 
     section.
       (d) Powers.--
       (1) In general.--The Inspector General may exercise the 
     same authorities with respect to the Transit Authority as an 
     Inspector General of an establishment may exercise with 
     respect to an establishment under section 6(a) of the 
     Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App. 6(a)), other 
     than paragraphs (7), (8), and (9) of such section.
       (2) Staff.--

[[Page 13453]]

       (A) Assistant inspector generals and other staff.--The 
     Inspector General shall appoint and fix the pay of--
       (i) an Assistant Inspector General for Audits, who shall be 
     responsible for coordinating the activities of the Inspector 
     General relating to audits;
       (ii) an Assistant Inspector General for Investigations, who 
     shall be responsible for coordinating the activities of the 
     Inspector General relating to investigations; and
       (iii) such other personnel as the Inspector General 
     considers appropriate.
       (B) Independence in appointing staff.--No individual may 
     carry out any of the duties or responsibilities of the Office 
     unless the individual is appointed by the Inspector General, 
     or provides services procured by the Inspector General, 
     pursuant to this paragraph. Nothing in this subparagraph may 
     be construed to prohibit the Inspector General from entering 
     into a contract or other arrangement for the provision of 
     services under this section.
       (C) Applicability of transit system personnel rules.--None 
     of the regulations governing the appointment and pay of 
     employees of the Transit System shall apply with respect to 
     the appointment and compensation of the personnel of the 
     Office, except to the extent agreed to by the Inspector 
     General. Nothing in the previous sentence may be construed to 
     affect subparagraphs (A) through (B).
       (3) Equipment and supplies.--The General Manager of the 
     Transit Authority shall provide the Office with appropriate 
     and adequate office space, together with such equipment, 
     supplies, and communications facilities and services as may 
     be necessary for the operation of the Office, and shall 
     provide necessary maintenance services for such office space 
     and the equipment and facilities located therein.
       (e) Transfer of Functions.--To the extent that any office 
     or entity in the Transit Authority prior to the appointment 
     of the first Inspector General under this section carried out 
     any of the duties and responsibilities assigned to the 
     Inspector General under this section, the functions of such 
     office or entity shall be transferred to the Office upon the 
     appointment of the first Inspector General under this 
     section.

     SEC. 4. STUDY AND REPORT BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on the use of the funds provided under section 18 of the 
     National Capital Transportation Act of 1969 (as added by this 
     Act).
       (b) Report.--Not later than 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the study conducted 
     under subsection (a).

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators 
Mikulski, Cardin and Warner, to introduce legislation that will 
reaffirm the Federal Government's continuing responsibility for the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, WMATA. Our legislation, 
in cooperation with State and local governments of the national capital 
region, will aid in the preservation and maintenance of our regional 
transportation system.
  Our predecessors in Congress had a clear vision for rapid rail and 
bus service that would not only transport Federal employees, residents, 
and visitors around the national capital region but that would also 
alleviate traffic congestion, spur growth and development, improve the 
economic welfare and vitality of all parts of the region, and ensure 
that all area residents have sufficient mobility options.
  The Washington Metro transit system has fulfilled that vision and 
more, providing critical support to the Federal Government and the 
region during emergencies, helping to protect the environment and 
improve air quality in our Nation's Capital, and attracting visitors 
from around the country and the world to ride the system--now a 
monument of its own.
  With the Federal Government's commitment to reduce our Nation's 
dependence on foreign oil and to increase national security, Federal 
support of the Washington Metro system is more important now than ever 
before. Congress has a fundamental interest in the transit system, and 
we must join our longstanding regional partners to help meet the demand 
of Metro's growing ridership and aging infrastructure.
  Since the Washington Metro transit system began operating its first 
4.6 miles of the Red Line between Rhode Island Avenue and Farragut 
North in 1976, the Metrorail system has added over 100 miles and 
extended operations to a total of 86 stations throughout the District 
of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. Almost half of all Metrorail 
stations today serve Federal facilities, and 42 percent of Metro's peak 
period commuters are Federal employees.
  Metrorail and Metrobus ridership continue to grow as more than a 
million riders on average per weekday choose Metro as their preferred 
mode of transit for traveling around the national capital region. 
Metrorail ridership has grown steadily at an average annual growth of 4 
percent, according to the Progress Report on the National Capital 
Region's Six-Year Transportation Capital Funding Needs, 2007-2012, by 
the Metropolitan Washington Transportation Planning Board, TPB. The 
report predicts that transit ridership demand will exceed system 
capacity by the year 2010. New funding authorized in this legislation 
would provide the necessary resources to increase bus and rail capacity 
and meet forecasted ridership demands, before the system and region 
become totally mired in congestion.
  The Washington Metro transit system has proven critical to the 
Federal Government, not only in moving its employees and serving 
Federal facilities but also in providing significant support during 
emergencies. Immediately following the September 11, 2001, terrorist 
attack on the Pentagon, Metro continued operations and helped safely 
evacuate hundreds of thousands of people from the downtown core of the 
District of Columbia. For a 30-day period after September 11, Metro 
opened Metrorail service half an hour early to support the Department 
of Defense as it heightened security actions and encountered major 
traffic congestion accessing the Pentagon.
  Metro is a key component in emergency transportation and continuity 
of operations plans for the entire region, including the civilian and 
military Federal workforce. Without the use of the Metro system, 
gridlock would ensue on the region's roadways to a degree that would 
make all emergency transportation evacuation plans inoperable. With 
enactment of the legislation we propose today, Congress will assist the 
Washington Metro transit system to continue to provide its vital 
service and bolster security measures throughout the system.
  Additional funding will also enable the transit system to continue to 
provide the invaluable service of helping to reduce traffic congestion 
throughout the region. With area roadways becoming increasingly 
congested, the Washington Metro transit system is critical to the 
region's infrastructure.
  According to the 2005 Urban Mobility Report by the Texas 
Transportation Institute, TTI, the Washington metropolitan area has the 
third-worst traffic congestion in the United States. Washington area 
commuters sat in traffic for 145.5 million hours in 2003, costing 
drivers an estimated $2.46 billion and wasting more than 87 million 
gallons of fuel. The report shows that the Washington area would have 
the worst congestion in the Nation if not for its public transportation 
system. Moreover, the report concludes that Washington Metro transit 
improvements are necessary to help further relieve congested corridors 
and serve major activity centers.
  Currently, Metrorail and Metrobus services result in 580,000 cars 
being removed from the region's highways each weekday and eliminate the 
need for 1,400 additional highway lane miles. A reliable and safe 
public transportation system is essential to encouraging more commuters 
to utilize alternative modes of transportation, especially as 
congestion on regional roadways is projected to increase, along with 
strong job and population growth in the National Capital region.
  The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, MWCOG, estimates 
the area's population will grow 36 percent by 2030. Already struggling 
to meet its current ridership demands, the Washington Metro transit 
system desperately needs increased support from the Federal Government 
and State and local governments in the national capital region to keep 
up with the region's current and future economic progress.
  Metro is an unparalleled asset to the region, not only reducing 
traffic congestion and air pollutants but also

[[Page 13454]]

helping to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. Public 
transportation is an inherently energy efficient travel mode, with each 
transit user consuming an average of one-half the oil consumed by the 
typical automobile user, according to the American Public 
Transportation Association, APTA.
  Current public transportation usage reduces U.S. gasoline consumption 
by 1.4 billion gallons each year. In concrete terms, that means 108 
million fewer cars are filling up with gas per year, or almost 300,000 
per day, 34 fewer supertankers are leaving the Middle East per year, 
and over 140,000 fewer tanker trucks are making deliveries to service 
stations.
  Locally, the Washington Metro transit system saves the region from 
using 75 million gallons of gasoline each year. As gas prices continue 
to rise, many Washington area residents will continue to seize upon the 
opportunity to save money on fuel consumption by taking public 
transportation. Additional Federal funding will allow Metro to purchase 
340 new railcars and 275 new buses, which are necessary to accommodate 
more riders and help further reduce oil consumption throughout the 
Washington region.
  Public transportation not only helps reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil, but it also helps reduce toxic emissions and air pollution caused 
by the large number of cars sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic on area 
roadways. The Washington Metro transit system eliminates more than 
10,000 tons of pollutants from the air each year. Much of the Metrobus 
fleet is comprised of eco-friendly buses that run on ultra low sulfur 
diesel fuel, compressed natural gas, diesel electric hybrid and 
advanced technology fuels. Investing in Metro is one of the most 
significant contributions the Federal Government can make to help 
protect the environment in the Washington metropolitan area.
  Reliable Metrorail and Metrobus service is an attractive alternative 
to sitting in traffic, but if Metro does not receive additional 
funding, reliability will diminish along with the public's confidence 
in the transit system. Already, Metro is struggling to accommodate more 
riders and modernize its existing assets. Additional dedicated sources 
of funding are needed if Metro is to continue to serve the Federal 
workforce and thousands of other area residents and visitors.
  For the past 30 years, the Washington Metro transit system has been a 
bedrock for the national capital region, providing reliable 
transportation, facilitating day-to-day operations of the Federal 
Government, spurring economic growth and sensible development, reducing 
sprawl and traffic congestion, and improving the quality of life for 
the region's citizens and visitors to the Nation's Capital.
  The future of Metro and its continued success relies upon consistent 
support from the Federal Government and the regional localities it 
serves. Now is the time for the Federal Government to commit itself to 
providing more long-term Federal funding for the Washington Metro 
system. Together, along with our jurisdictional partners, we must 
continue to invest in the transit system that has brought so many 
rewards not only to the region but also to the Federal Government and 
the entire Nation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it 
moves through the Senate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 1448. A bill to extend the same Federal benefits to law 
enforcement officers serving private institutions of higher education 
and rail carriers that apply to law enforcement officers serving units 
of State and local government; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, on April 16, 2007, our Nation faced a 
terrible tragedy, the deadliest shooting in the history of our Nation. 
I want to express my sympathy to the victims of this senseless 
violence, one of whom was Daniel O'Neil, a 22-year-old Virginia Tech 
graduate student from Lincoln, RI.
  The unfortunate truth is that this unspeakable event could have 
happened on any campus, anywhere. It highlighted how vulnerable our 
Nation's university and college campuses can be to this type of attack.
  Today, I am reintroducing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to 
extend Federal benefits to law enforcement officers who serve private 
institutions of higher education and rail carriers, including line-of-
duty death benefits under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, 
and eligibility for bulletproof vest partnership grants through the 
Department of Justice. This legislation would give sworn, licensed, or 
certified police officers serving private institutions of higher 
education and rail carriers the same Federal benefits that apply to law 
enforcement officers serving units of State and local government.
  The Public Safety Officers' Benefits, PSOB, Act of 1976 was enacted 
to aid in the recruitment and retention of law enforcement officers and 
firefighters by providing a one-time financial benefit to the eligible 
survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct result 
of traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. Specifically, this 
law addresses concerns that the hazards inherent in law enforcement and 
fire suppression, and the low level of State and local death benefits, 
might discourage qualified individuals from seeking careers in these 
fields.
  The same risks also apply to police officers protecting our private 
universities and railways. Unfortunately, the Public Safety Officers' 
Benefits Act omitted coverage to sworn officers who are privately 
employed, even though they enforce the law and have arrest powers 
within their jurisdiction. These brave officers, who protect our 
college and university campuses and railways every day and receive the 
same training as their government counterparts, are thus excluded from 
receiving the same line-of-duty Federal death benefits as law 
enforcement officers serving units of State and local governments.
  According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 25 
college or university officers have been killed in the line of duty 
since September 20, 1963. The names of these 25 officers, including 
Officer Joseph Francis Doyle, who was killed in the line of duty at 
Brown University in 1988, as well as 59 railway officers who have been 
killed in the line-of-duty are inscribed on the Memorial.
  Since September 2004, three sworn campus police officers have been 
killed in the line-of-duty. Two of these officers were from public 
universities: the University of Florida and the University of 
Mississippi, whose sworn officers are covered by the Public Safety 
Officers' Benefits Act. The third, however, was Butler University 
Police Department Officer James L. Davis, Jr., who was shot and killed 
in the line of duty on September 24, 2004, while responding to a campus 
disturbance. Because Butler University is a private university, Officer 
Davis was not eligible for the same Federal benefits as his 
counterparts at the University of Florida or the University of 
Mississippi.
  I am pleased that Senators Leahy and Cornyn have joined me in 
introducing this legislation to help remedy this discrepancy in death 
benefit payments for law enforcement officers and ensure that these 
public safety officers have access to the protective equipment they 
need.
  The bill would apply only to sworn peace officers who receive State 
certification or licensing, and is supported by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, IACP, and the International 
Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, IACLEA. Indeed, 
the benefits of this legislation far outweigh the costs. A 2004 
analysis by the Congressional Budget Office found that there would be 
no significant budget impact by its enactment.
  I urge my colleagues to join me, and Senators Leahy and Cornyn, in 
cosponsoring and passing the Equity in Law Enforcement Act, to ensure 
that the brave officers that serve and protect our private college and 
university campuses and railways receive the benefits that they 
deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page 13455]]



                                S. 1448

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Equity in Law Enforcement 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. LINE-OF-DUTY DEATH AND DISABILITY BENEFITS.

       Section 1204(8) of part L of the Omnibus Crime Control and 
     Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796b(8)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(D) an individual who is--
       ``(i) serving a private institution of higher education in 
     an official capacity, with or without compensation, as a law 
     enforcement officer; and
       ``(ii) sworn, licensed, or certified under the laws of a 
     State for the purposes of law enforcement (and trained to 
     meet the training standards for law enforcement officers 
     established by the relevant governmental appointing 
     authority); or
       ``(E) a rail police officer who is--
       ``(i) employed by a rail carrier; and
       ``(ii) sworn, licensed, or certified under the laws of a 
     State for the purposes of law enforcement (and trained to 
     meet the training standards for law enforcement officers 
     established by the relevant governmental appointing 
     authority).''.

     SEC. 3. LAW ENFORCEMENT ARMOR VESTS.

       (a) Grant Program.--Section 2501 of part Y of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``and Indian tribes'' and inserting 
     ``Indian tribes, private institutions of higher education, 
     and rail carriers''; and
       (B) by inserting before the period the following: ``and law 
     enforcement officers serving private institutions of higher 
     education and rail carriers who are sworn, licensed, or 
     certified under the laws of a State for the purposes of law 
     enforcement (and trained to meet the training standards for 
     law enforcement officers established by the relevant 
     governmental appointing authority)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or Indian tribe'' 
     and inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher 
     education, or rail carrier''; and
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``or Indian tribe'' and 
     inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher 
     education, or rail carrier''.
       (b) Applications.--Section 2502 of part Y of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll-
     1) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``or Indian tribe'' and 
     inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher 
     education, or rail carrier''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``and Indian tribes'' 
     and inserting ``Indian tribes, private institutions of higher 
     education, and rail carriers''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 2503(6) of part Y of the Omnibus 
     Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796ll-
     2(6)) is amended by striking ``or Indian tribe'' and 
     inserting ``Indian tribe, private institution of higher 
     education, or rail carrier''.

     SEC. 4. BYRNE GRANTS.

       Section 501(b)(2) of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3751(b)(2)) 
     is amended by inserting after ``units of local government'' 
     the following: ``, private institutions of higher education, 
     and rail carriers''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Allard):
  S. 1449. A bill to establish the Rocky Mountain Science Collections 
Center to assist in preserving the archeological, anthropological, 
paleontological, zoological, and geologic artifacts and archival 
documentation from the Rocky Mountain region through the construction 
of an on-site, secure collections facility for the Denver Museum of 
Nature and Science in Denver, Colorado; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today Senator Allard and I introduced the 
``Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center Act of 2007,'' a bill to 
establish a secure collections facility and education center for 
archeological, anthropological, paleontological, zoological, and 
geological artifacts and archival documentation from throughout the 
Rocky Mountain region at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, Denver, 
Colorado.
  Our bill would authorize $15 million, subject to appropriations, for 
the Secretary of Interior to provide grants to pay the Federal share, 
50 percent of the cost of constructing appropriate, museum-standard 
facilities to house the collections of the Museum.
  Since its founding in 1900, the Denver Museum of Nature & Science has 
been the principal natural history museum between Chicago and Los 
Angeles and has educated more than 70 million visitors. The Museum 
holds more than a million objects in public trust. Together, the 
Museum's collections, library, and archives provide the foundation for 
understanding science and the natural and cultural history of the 
region and serve as the primary resource for informal science education 
to Colorado school and general audiences. The Museum is a world leader 
in creating opportunities that allow the general public to participate 
in authentic collection based scientific research.
  The majority of the collections that the Museum maintains in 
perpetuity are acquired through federal authorization, are cared for on 
behalf of Federal agencies, or are controlled by federal legislation. 
Of the more than 840,000 items in the Museum's collection, more than 
half were recovered from federally managed public land. Construction of 
on-site collection facilities, exhibition facilities and an education 
center for the Museum will provide a secure facility for the collection 
and ensure that it is accessible to members of the public, universities 
and research scientists alike. The Federal cost share will help pay for 
construction as well as the costs of design, planning, furnishing, 
equipping and supporting the Museum.
  For the benefit of my colleagues, here is a summary of the bill's 
provisions:
  Section 1. Short Title. The Rocky Mountain Science Collections Center 
Act of 2007.
  Section 2. Findings. Recites several of the findings of Congress, 
including the size and breadth of the collections held by the Denver 
Museum of Nature and Science and the finding that significant portions 
of these collections were recovered from public lands managed by 
various Federal agencies. The Denver Museum of Nature and Science is 
the federally designated repository for these collections and as such 
is governed by various Federal statutes and regulations in carrying out 
its trustee responsibilities.
  Section 3. Definitions. The term ``Museum'' in the Act refers to the 
Denver Museum of Nature and Science. The term ``Secretary'' in the Act 
refers to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
  Section 4. Grant to the Museum. This section provides that the 
Secretary may provide grants to pay for the Federal share of the cost 
of constructing appropriate, Museum standard facilities to house the 
collections of the Museum. The Federal share reflects the continuing 
Federal ownership of the artifacts and other scientifically significant 
materials held by the Museum in a trust responsibility. This section 
authorizes the use of any grant funds for construction, design, 
engineering, plans, equipment, furnishing and other services or goods 
in furtherance of the construction of the Collections Center.
  Subsection 4 (b). Application. The subsection provides an application 
process whereby the Museum provides the Secretary with the necessary 
documentation and information to assure the Secretary that grant 
proceeds are expended for the intended result.
  Subsection 4 (c). Matching Funds. This subsection requires the Museum 
to provide a match for any amounts granted under the section and allows 
the Museum to use cash, in-kind donations and/or services in 
satisfaction of the match requirement.
  Subsection 4 (d). Authorization. The Act authorizes $15,000,000 to be 
appropriated to the Secretary in carrying out the Act; such funds to 
remain available until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1450. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Housing 
Assistance Council; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Housing 
Assistance Council Authorization Act. This legislation will authorize 
appropriations for the Housing Assistance Council, HAC, which has been 
committed to developing affordable housing in rural communities for 
over 35 years.

[[Page 13456]]

  The bill provides $10 million for HAC in fiscal year 2008 and then 
$15 million in fiscal year 2009-2014. In the past, the Council has 
received appropriations from the Self Help and Assisted Homeownership 
Opportunity Program. The funding has helped HAC provide loans to 1,875 
organizations across the country, raise and distribute over $5 million 
in capacity building grants and hold regional training workshops. These 
critical services help local organizations, rural communities and 
cities develop safe and affordable housing.
  Throughout the country, approximately one-fifth of the Nation's 
population lives in rural communities. About 7.5 million of the rural 
population is living in poverty and 2.5 million of them are children. 
Nearly 3.6 million rural households pay more than 30 percent of their 
income in housing costs. While housing costs are generally lower in 
rural counties, wages are dramatically outpaced by the cost of housing. 
Additionally, the housing conditions are often substandard and there 
are many families doubled up due to lack of housing. Rural areas lack 
both affordable rental units and homeownership opportunities needed to 
serve the population.
  There are several Federal programs that are aimed at developing 
affordable housing and economic opportunities in rural communities in 
both the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department 
of Agriculture. However, over the past 6 years, funding for these 
programs has been reduced by 20 percent. For the fiscal year 2008 
budget, the administration proposed to eliminate $1.3 billion in rural 
housing assistance. In many regions Federal funding might be the only 
assistance available for housing and economic development. The Housing 
Assistance Council is yet another tool that rural communities can 
utilize when trying to develop affordable housing.
  In Wisconsin, HAC has provided close to $5.2 million in grants and 
loans to 17 nonprofit housing organizations and helped develop 820 
units of housing. Specifically, since 1972 the Southeastern Wisconsin 
Housing Corporation has partnered with the Housing Assistance Council 
to develop 268 units of self-help housing. The presence of the Council 
in Wisconsin has made a huge impact on rural housing development in 
Wisconsin and other rural communities across the country.
  I am very honored to work with Senator Snowe this legislation. Its 
passage will allow every State to better serve the needs of the people 
living in rural areas. I look forward to Working with my colleagues to 
ensure the adoption of this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WHITEHOUSE:
  S. 1451. A bill to encourage the development of coordinated quality 
reforms to improve health care delivery and reduce the cost of care in 
the health care system; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I rise today because I will be 
introducing my first bills as a Member of this esteemed body; 
legislation that I hope will provide a helpful step forward as we 
address one of the most significant challenges this Senate faces, 
reforming America's broken health care system.
  I have heard from countless Rhode Islanders who have struggled to pay 
for their health care and who live in fear of losing coverage on which 
they and their families depend. I have met nurses frustrated and 
heartbroken that they must spend so much time coping with the paperwork 
and so little time caring for patients. I have talked with families 
whose lives and health were shaken by terrifying medical errors, lost 
paperwork, missed diagnoses that should have been totally avoided.
  I believe our current health care system is too complex and costs so 
much, yet so often does not provide patients with the quality of care 
they should have. It does not have to be this way. I have seen 
firsthand that we can make the system work better for everyone, we can 
cut costs, save lives, and improve the quality of the health care we 
receive, a critical step toward ensuring that all Americans have health 
care they can afford.
  In Rhode Island, we have been working and experimenting for years to 
find solutions to many of these challenges. I have been privileged to 
be part of much of that work, most directly when I founded the Rhode 
Island Quality Institute to focus on quality reforms in health care.
  While we have a long way to go, so far we have been successful. It is 
that Rhode Island experience that I bring to you today. It is Rhode 
Island's good work that I hope will provide a good example.
  Right now our health care system is a mess, such a mess that we 
should hesitate to call it a health care system. It yields 
unsatisfactory results at vast expense. What I wish to talk about today 
is not how you finance the health care system--that is an important 
issue--but it is a different issue. I don't even want to talk about how 
you get all Americans covered by our health care system. That is 
another important issue, but that is not the subject today.
  The subject today is the issue of how the system itself runs, how it 
operates, put bluntly, how badly in America it runs. If we can reduce 
the cost of the underlying system by improving its performance, it will 
make solutions easier for financing our health care system and for 
finding a way to make sure every American gets health care coverage. 
Our health care system is a mess. The number of uninsured Americans is 
climbing and will soon reach 50 million. The annual cost of the system 
exceeds $2 trillion every year, and that number is expected soon to 
double. We spend more of our gross domestic product on health care than 
any other industrialized country in the world, 16 percent. That is 
double the European Union average.
  There is today more health care in Ford cars than there is steel. 
There is more health care in Starbucks coffee than there are coffee 
beans. Worse still, for all this money we spend, we get a mediocre 
product. We have the best doctors, the best nurses, the best procedures 
and equipment, the best medical education in the world. Yet the system 
produces mediocre results. As many as 100,000 Americans are killed 
every year by unnecessary and avoidable medical errors. That is just 
the fatalities. Think how many people have to stay longer in the 
hospital and run up costs.
  Life expectancy, obesity rates, and infant mortality rates are much 
worse than they should be in a country such as ours. We fail by most 
international measures. The system itself does not work. Hospitals are 
going broke. Doctors are furious, and paperwork chokes the system.
  Quarrels between the providers and the payers drive up costs, while 
potential savings in billions of dollars are left lying on the table. 
More American families are bankrupted by health care costs than any 
other cause. It is a system in crisis.
  I urge my colleagues to consider this point too. If we do not fix 
this system now, while we still can, if we don't get these savings now, 
then we are going to be forced to consider very tragic choices in the 
future: Cutting coverage for seniors now on Medicare, throwing children 
off S-CHIP or pushing more and more out-of-pocket costs onto families 
who need Medicaid in their struggle to get by.
  Those will be tragic choices, awful choices, ones I hope we never 
have to deliberate. But if we end up having to make these choices 
because today we failed to do our duty, then shame on us.
  I believe what is wrong with our system can be identified. The 
reasons for its failures can be identified. The causes of those 
failures can be corrected, and the failings can be cured.
  In the days to come, I will speak at greater length on three critical 
areas of reform, one by one, and advance proposals for each one that 
will help provide a cure.
  Today, I wish to highlight all three of the major failures, how they 
combine to worsen each other and keep our system broken, and how 
reforming those three areas can reinforce each other and repair our 
broken system.

[[Page 13457]]

  Left unattended, these three conditions will continue to degrade our 
system. Properly reformed, they will begin to improve it. This is 
because what we are dealing with, in a nutshell, is market failure. 
Market forces are bottled up, logjammed, conflicted, and misdirected to 
push the health care system in a bad direction.
  I trust market forces and I believe in market forces, but I see it as 
our job in Government to create the environment in which market forces 
operate in a healthy way to serve the public interest.
  That is our job. It always has been. Where that healthy environment 
for market forces does not exist--which is the case right now in our 
health care system--Government must act. The market failure in health 
care has three core components: One, the American health care system 
does not optimize investment in quality of care, even where--indeed, 
particularly where--that quality investment in improving care would 
also lower costs; two, the system does not have the information 
technology infrastructure to support the improvements we need; three, 
the way we pay for health care sends perverse price signals that steer 
us away from the public interest.
  These problems can each be fixed, but fixing each in isolation will 
not yield the change we need. Similar to three climbers roped together 
for an ascent, the three solutions need to track with each other, not 
necessarily in lockstep but staying close because each one reinforces 
the other.
  Let me tell a story about each one of those problems to illustrate 
the three points. Let's look at the area where improved quality of care 
would lower costs. That intersection, where improved quality of care 
and lower costs converge, should be our Holy Grail. A good example 
comes out of the Keystone Project in Michigan, home to Senators Levin 
and Stabenow.
  The Keystone Project went into a significant number of Michigan 
intensive care units to improve quality and reduce line infections, 
respiratory complications, and other conditions that are associated 
with intensive care units. In a 15-month span, between March 2004 and 
June 2005, the project saved 1,578 lives, 81,020 days patients would 
otherwise have been spent in the hospital, and it saved--in that 15 
months--over $165 million.
  The Rhode Island Quality Institute has taken this model statewide in 
Rhode Island, with every hospital participating. Infections in patients 
with catheters decreased 36 percent from the first quarter of 2006 to 
the fourth quarter. Eleven out of twenty-three participating intensive 
care units had zero infections for 12 months. Savings from the 
initiative are on track to produce $4 million annually. That is pretty 
good money in Rhode Island.
  What is true in intensive care units in Michigan and Rhode Island is 
also true far more broadly in health care. There are many areas where 
significant savings can be achieved by making care better. There could 
be initiatives similar to Keystone throughout the health care sector. 
They do not necessarily have to be reforms of existing procedures and 
practices because Keystone was. Quality improvements, quality reform, 
could well involve improvements in prevention and detection of illness, 
stopping it before it even gets to the hospital. There are vast and 
unexplored horizons out there, rich with opportunity, and the Keystone 
story is one example of how improved quality of care can lower costs 
and save lives. This takes us to the second story, this one about the 
reimbursement problem. Why isn't this quality reform happening 
spontaneously all over the country if these big savings are there? 
Think of Michigan, $165 million in 15 months in one State. That is big 
money.
  Why isn't it being pursued? Why aren't we all doing this? Well, 
primarily because the economics of health care pays providers not to 
and punishes providers who try. When a group of hospitals in Utah began 
following the guidelines of the American Thoracic Society for treating 
community-acquired pneumonia, significant complications fell from 15.3 
percent to 11.6 percent, inpatient mortality fell from 7.2 to 5.3 
percent, and the resulting cost savings exceeded half a million dollars 
a year. But net operating income of participating facilities dropped by 
over $200,000 per year because treating the healthier patients was 
reimbursed at roughly $12,000 less per case.
  In Rhode Island, when we got into this intensive care unit reform, 
the Hospital Association estimated a $400,000 cost for $8 million in 
savings, a 20-to-1 return on investment. But all the savings went to 
the insurers and the payers, and the costs came out of the hospitals' 
pockets. Do you know a lot of businesses that invest money in order to 
reduce their revenue? I don't. How many businesses would spend $400,000 
in cash to lose $8 million in revenues every year? With reimbursement 
incentives such as the ones we have, it is no wonder that quality 
investments face an uphill struggle.
  The final problem is our health care information technology, which is 
inexcusably underdeveloped and underdeployed. It has been described by 
the Economist magazine as the worst information technology system in 
any American industry except one, the mining industry. We are leaving 
massive savings in health care costs unclaimed as a result.
  Some pretty respectable groups have looked at health information 
technology to see what an adequate system would save in health care 
costs, and here is what they report: Rand Corporation, $81 billion per 
year conservatively. David Brailer, the former National Coordinator for 
Health Information Technology, $100 billion per year. The Center for 
Information Technology Leadership, $77 billion per year. That is a lot 
of savings to leave sitting on the table, savings desperately needed by 
American businesses and American families.
  Here is my third story, about a courageous and passionate doctor in 
Rhode Island trying to build an electronic health record for patients 
in our State. By the way of context, Rhode Island may be the lead State 
in the country at developing health information technology. We have 
Patrick Kennedy in the House, our Representative, who has been an 
absolute leader on this issue; Lifespan and other hospitals are leaders 
in electronic physician order entry; the Rhode Island Quality Institute 
is a leader in e-prescribing, electronic health records and health 
information exchange; Rhode Island Blue Cross is beginning to fund 
innovations; all the local Rhode Island health care folks are active in 
this. It is very impressive. I mean no criticism by telling this story, 
only to illustrate what an uphill struggle it is.
  The lead on developing electronic health records in Rhode Island is 
being taken by a very frustrated doctor, Dr. Mark Jacobs, who put his 
practice on hold, went out and looked at what was available, found an 
e-clinical works platform, had it modified to suit what he thought 
would be more useful for his needs, and is now raising capital and 
trying to recruit his colleagues to get around that system and get it 
up. It is his passion, and he is dedicating himself to it with energy 
and conviction.
  What Dr. Jacobs is doing is heroic, but if you went to any business 
school and if they asked you, what is the best way to seize that $81 
billion a year in savings that RAND Corporation has said is out there, 
and you had said: Well, we are going to wait until a doctor gets so 
frustrated he is willing to give up his practice and go out and try to 
learn about health care technology and do it on his own, you would be 
laughed out of that business school classroom. They wouldn't just say 
you flunked the course, they would suggest you should maybe look at 
another livelihood. But that is exactly the system we have right now.
  If a truckdriver were to go out with a pick and shovel building bits 
of the interstate highway for us, that would be pretty heroic and 
noble. But all the way back to Dwight Eisenhower, people in Government 
knew that would be a pretty nonsensical way to finance the Federal 
highway system.
  We have work to do in these three areas: fixing our information 
technology to increase efficiency and generate savings; improving 
health care

[[Page 13458]]

quality and prevention in ways that lower costs; and repairing the 
reimbursement system so it does not discourage those reforms but 
encourages and rewards them.
  In the coming days, I will expand on each of these problems, and I 
will propose solutions in those three areas that will unleash market 
incentives in positive directions. As I conclude, my message is this: 
The health care system that underlies all our health care financing and 
coverage problems is itself broken. The underlying health care delivery 
system is itself broken. It is administrative and bureaucratic 
machinery, but it is still machinery. It needs to be repaired the way 
any broken machinery does. Fixing it, however, will reduce costs, 
improve care, and make a badly operating system run better and move us 
a critical step forward to making sure every American family has access 
to health care they can afford.
  I sincerely hope to work with all of my colleagues on solving this. 
Please think of it this way: If your car is not running right, there is 
no Republican or Democratic way to tune it up. There is just getting it 
working. If your plumbing is jammed and water is flooding out, there is 
not a Republican or Democratic way to fix that. It is either flowing 
properly or it isn't. If your electric system is sparking and short 
circuited, again, there is no Democratic or Republican way to solve 
that problem. It is working right or it is not. Our health care system 
is not working right, and it needs to be fixed. Because the health care 
system is a dynamic system, you can't tell it what to do. You have to 
take the trouble to identify what is wrong, identify why it is wrong, 
and correct the cause.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1452. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
national center for public mental health emergency preparedness, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today Senator Domenici and I are 
introducing the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 
2007. I originally introduced this legislation during the 109 Congress 
to address mental health needs of those affected by disasters and 
public health emergencies, and I want to thank Senator Domenici for his 
support of this legislation and for his strong leadership on mental 
health issues. The Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 
2007 would take several important steps toward preparing our Nation to 
effectively address mental health issues in the wake of public health 
emergencies, including potential bioterrorist attacks. We are pleased 
to be introducing this important legislation in anticipation of 
reauthorization of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration SAMHSA.
  I want to acknowledge and thank our partners from the mental health 
community who have collaborated with us and have been working 
diligently on these issues for several years, including the American 
Psychological Association, the American Public Health Association, the 
National Association of Social Workers, and the American Academy of 
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and all the other groups who have lent 
their support.
  The events of September 11, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and other 
recent natural and man-made catastrophes have sadly taught us that our 
current resources are not sufficient or coordinated enough to meet the 
mental health needs of those devastated by emergency events. We need a 
network of trained mental health professionals, first responders and 
leaders, and a process to mobilize and deploy mental health resources 
in a rapid and sustained manner at times of an emergency.
  It is clear that the consequences of emergency events like hurricanes 
or terrorist attacks result in increased emotional and psychological 
suffering among survivors and responders, and we must do more to assist 
all who are affected. That is why I, along with Senator Domenici, am 
introducing the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 
2007.
  This bill would require the Secretary of Health and Human services to 
establish the National Center for Public Mental Health Emergency 
Preparedness the National Center to coordinate the development and 
delivery of mental health services in collaboration with existing 
Federal, State and local entities when our Nation is confronted with 
public health catastrophes.
  This legislation would charge the National Center with five functions 
to benefit affected Americans at the community level, including 
vulnerable populations like children, older Americans, caregivers, 
persons with disabilities, and persons living in poverty.
  First, the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007 
would make sure we have evidence-based or emerging best practices 
curricula available to meet the diverse training needs of a wide range 
of emergency health professionals, including mental health 
professionals, public health and health care professionals, and 
emergency services personnel, working in coordination with county 
emergency managers, school personnel, spiritual care professionals, and 
State and local government officials responsible for emergency 
preparedness. By using these curricula to educate responders, the 
National Center would build a network of trained emergency health 
professionals at the State and local levels.
  Second, this legislation would establish and maintain a clearinghouse 
of educational materials, guidelines, and research on public mental 
health emergency preparedness and service delivery that would be 
evaluated and updated to ensure the information is accurate and 
current. Technical assistance would be provided to help users access 
those resources most effective for their communities.
  Third, this bill would create an annual national forum for emergency 
health professionals, researchers, and other experts as well as 
Federal, State and local government officials to identify and address 
gaps in science, practice, policy and education related to public 
mental health emergency preparedness and service delivery.
  Fourth, this bill would require annual evaluations of both the 
National Center's efforts and those across the Federal Government in 
building our Nation's public mental health emergency preparedness and 
service delivery capacity. Based on these evaluations, recommendations 
would be made to improve such activities.
  Finally, the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007 
would ensure that licensed mental health professionals are included in 
the deployment of Disaster Medical Assistance Teams DMAT. Deployment of 
licensed mental health professionals will increase the efficacy of the 
medical team members by providing psychological assistance and crisis 
counseling to survivors and to the other DMAT team members. Further, 
this legislation would mandate that licensed mental health 
professionals are included in the leadership of the National Disaster 
Medical System, NDMS, to provide appropriate support for behavioral 
programs and personnel within the DMATs.
  We must not wait until another disaster strikes before we take action 
to improve the way we respond to the psychological needs of affected 
Americans. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues to 
ensure passage of this bill that would take critical steps toward 
preparing our nation to successfully deal with the mental health 
consequences of public health emergencies.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text and letters of support be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1452

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Public Mental Health 
     Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007''.

[[Page 13459]]



     SEC. 2. NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH EMERGENCY 
                   PREPAREDNESS.

       (a) Technical Amendments.--The second part G (relating to 
     services provided through religious organizations) of title V 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290kk et seq.) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating such part as part J; and
       (2) by redesignating sections 581 through 584 as sections 
     596 through 596C, respectively.
       (b) National Center.--Title V of the Public Health Service 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa et seq.), as amended by subsection (a), 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``PART K--NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH EMERGENCY 
                              PREPAREDNESS

     ``SEC. 599. NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH 
                   EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS.

       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Definition.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this part, the term 
     `emergency health professionals' means--
       ``(i) mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, 
     psychologists, social workers, counselors, psychiatric 
     nurses, psychiatric aides and case managers, group home 
     staff, and those mental health professionals with expertise 
     in psychological trauma and issues related to vulnerable 
     populations such as children, older adults, caregivers, 
     individuals with disabilities, pre-existing mental health and 
     substance abuse disorders, and individuals living in poverty;
       ``(ii) public health and healthcare professionals, 
     including skilled nursing and assisted living professionals; 
     and
       ``(iii) emergency services personnel such as police, fire, 
     and emergency medical services personnel.
       ``(B) Coordination.--In conducting activities under this 
     part, emergency health professionals shall coordinate with--
       ``(i) county emergency managers;
       ``(ii) school personnel such as teachers, counselors, and 
     other personnel;
       ``(iii) spiritual care professionals;
       ``(iv) other disaster relief personnel; and
       ``(v) State and local government officials that are 
     responsible for emergency preparedness.
       ``(2) Establishment.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention, shall establish the National Center for Public 
     Mental Health Emergency Preparedness (referred to in this 
     part as the `NCPMHEP') to address mental health concerns and 
     coordinate and implement the development and delivery of 
     mental health services in conjunction with the entities 
     described in subsection (b)(2), in the event of bioterrorism 
     or other public health emergency.
       ``(3) Location; director.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall offer to award a 
     grant to an eligible institution to provide the location of 
     the NCPMHEP.
       ``(B) Eligible institution.--To be an eligible institution 
     under subparagraph (A), an institution shall--
       ``(i) be an academic medical center or similar institution 
     that has prior experience conducting statewide training, and 
     has a demonstrated record of leadership in national and 
     international forums, in public mental health emergency 
     preparedness, which may include disaster mental health 
     preparedness; and
       ``(ii) submit to the Secretary an application at such time, 
     in such manner, and containing such information as the 
     Secretary may require.
       ``(C) Director.--The NCPMHEP shall be headed by a Director, 
     who shall be appointed by the Secretary (referred to in this 
     part as the `Director') from the eligible institution to 
     which the Secretary awards a grant under subparagraph (A).
       ``(b) Duties.--The NCPMHEP shall--
       ``(1) prepare the Nation's emergency health professionals 
     to provide mental health services in the aftermath of 
     catastrophic events, such as bioterrorism or other public 
     health emergencies, that present psychological consequences 
     for communities and individuals, including vulnerable 
     populations such as children, individuals with disabilities, 
     individuals with preexisting mental health problems 
     (including substance-related disorders), older adults, 
     caregivers, and individuals living in poverty;
       ``(2) coordinate with existing mental health preparedness 
     and service delivery efforts of--
       ``(A) Federal agencies (such as the National Disaster 
     Medical System, the Medical Reserve Corps, the Substance 
     Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (including 
     the National Child Traumatic Stress Network), the 
     Administration on Aging, the National Institute of Mental 
     Health, the National Council on Disabilities, the 
     Administration on Children and Families, the Department of 
     Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs (including the 
     National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), and 
     tribal nations);
       ``(B) State agencies (such as the State mental health 
     authority, office of substance abuse services, public health 
     authority, department of aging, the office of mental 
     retardation and developmental disabilities, agencies 
     responsible rehabilitation services);
       ``(C) local agencies (such as county offices of mental 
     health and substance abuse services, public health, child and 
     family community-based services, law enforcement, fire, 
     emergency medical services, school districts, Aging Services 
     Network, county emergency management, and academic and 
     community-based service centers affiliated with the National 
     Child Traumatic Stress Network); and
       ``(D) other governmental and nongovernmental disaster 
     relief organizations; and
       ``(3) coordinate with childcare centers, childcare 
     providers, community-based youth serving programs (including 
     local Center for Mental Health Services children's systems of 
     care grant sites), Head Start, the National Child Traumatic 
     Stress Network, and school districts to provide--
       ``(A) support services to adults and their family members 
     with mental health and substance-related disorders to 
     facilitate access to mental health and substance-related 
     treatment;
       ``(B) prevention and intervention services for mental 
     health and substance-related disorders to youth of all ages 
     that integrate the training curricula under section 599A; and
       ``(C) resources and consultation to address the 
     psychological trauma needs of the families, caregivers, 
     emergency health professionals; and all other professionals 
     providing care in emergency situations.
       ``(c) Panel of Experts.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director, in consultation with 
     Federal (such as the National Association of State Mental 
     Health Program Directors, National Association of County and 
     City Health Officials, and the Association of State and 
     Territorial Health Officials), State, and local mental health 
     and public health authorities, shall develop a mechanism to 
     appoint a panel of experts for the NCPMHEP.
       ``(2) Membership.--
       ``(A) In general.--The panel of experts appointed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be composed of individuals--
       ``(i) who are--

       ``(I) experts in their respective fields with extensive 
     experience in public mental health emergency preparedness or 
     service delivery, such as mental health professionals, 
     researchers, spiritual care professionals, school counselors, 
     educators, and mental health professionals who are emergency 
     health professionals (as defined in subsection (a)(1)(A)) and 
     who shall coordinate with the individuals described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(B); and
       ``(II) recommended by their respective national 
     professional organizations and universities to such a 
     position; and

       ``(ii) who represent families with family members who have 
     mental health and substance-related disorders.
       ``(B) Terms.--The members of the panel of experts appointed 
     under paragraph (1)--
       ``(i) shall be appointed for a term of 3 years; and
       ``(ii) may be reappointed for an unlimited number of terms.
       ``(C) Balance of composition.--The Director shall ensure 
     that the membership composition of the panel of experts 
     fairly represents a balance of the type and number of experts 
     described under subparagraph (A).
       ``(D) Vacancies.--
       ``(i) In general.--A vacancy on the panel of experts shall 
     be filled in the manner in which the original appointment was 
     made and shall be subject to conditions which applied with 
     respect to the original appointment.
       ``(ii) Filling unexpired term.--An individual chosen to 
     fill a vacancy shall be appointed for the unexpired term of 
     the member replaced.
       ``(iii) Expiration of terms.--The term of any member shall 
     not expire before the date on which the member's successor 
     takes office.

     ``SEC. 599A. TRAINING CURRICULA FOR EMERGENCY HEALTH 
                   PROFESSIONALS.

       ``(a) Convening of Group.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall convene a Training 
     Curricula Working Group from the panel of experts described 
     in section 599(c) to--
       ``(A) identify and review existing mental health training 
     curricula for emergency health professionals;
       ``(B) approve any such training curricula that are 
     evidence-based or emerging best practices and that satisfy 
     practice and service delivery standards determined by the 
     Training Curricula Working Group; and
       ``(C) make recommendations for, and participate in, the 
     development of any additional training curricula, as 
     determined necessary by the Training Curricula Working Group.
       ``(2) Collaboration.--The Training Curricula Working Group 
     shall collaborate with appropriate organizations including 
     the American Red Cross, the National Child Traumatic Stress 
     Network, the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress 
     Disorder, and the International Society for Traumatic Stress 
     Studies.
       ``(b) Purpose of Training Curricula.--The Training 
     Curricula Working Group shall ensure that the training 
     curricula approved by the NCPMHEP--

[[Page 13460]]

       ``(1) provide the knowledge and skills necessary to respond 
     effectively to the psychological needs of affected 
     individuals, relief personnel, and communities in the event 
     of bioterrorism or other public health emergency; and
       ``(2) is used to build a trained network of emergency 
     health professionals at the State and local levels.
       ``(c) Content of Training Curricula.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Training Curricula Working Group 
     shall ensure that the training curricula approved by the 
     NCPMHEP--
       ``(A) prepares emergency health professionals, in the event 
     of bioterrorism or other public health emergency, for 
     identifying symptoms of psychological trauma, supplying 
     immediate relief to keep affected persons safe, recognizing 
     when to refer affected persons for further mental healthcare 
     or substance abuse treatment, understanding how and where to 
     refer for such care, and other components as determined by 
     the Director in consultation with the Training Curricula 
     Working Group;
       ``(B) includes training or informational material designed 
     to educate and prepare State and local government officials, 
     in the event of bioterrorism or other public health 
     emergency, in coordinating and deploying mental health 
     resources and services and in addressing other mental health 
     needs, as determined by the Director in consultation with the 
     Training Curricula Working Group;
       ``(C) meets the diverse training needs of the range of 
     emergency health professionals; and
       ``(D) is culturally and linguistically competent.
       ``(2) Review of curricula.--The Training Curricula Working 
     Group shall routinely review existing training curricula and 
     participate in the revision of the training curricula 
     described under this section as necessary, taking into 
     consideration recommendations made by the participants of the 
     annual national forum under section 599D and the Assessment 
     Working Group described under section 599E.
       ``(d) Training Individuals.--
       ``(1) Field trainers.--The Director, in consultation with 
     the Training Curricula Working Group, shall develop a 
     mechanism through which qualified individuals trained through 
     the curricula approved by the NCPMHEP return to their 
     communities to recruit and train others in their respective 
     fields to serve on local emergency response teams.
       ``(2) Field leaders.--The Director, in consultation with 
     the Training Curricula Working Group, shall develop a 
     mechanism through which qualified individuals trained in 
     curricula approved by the NCPMHEP return to their communities 
     to provide expertise to State and local government agencies 
     to mobilize the mental health infrastructure of such State or 
     local agencies, including ensuring that mental health is a 
     component of emergency preparedness and service delivery of 
     such agencies.
       ``(3) Qualifications.--The individuals selected under 
     paragraph (1) or (2) shall--
       ``(A) pass a designated evaluation, as developed by the 
     Director in consultation with the Training Curricula Working 
     Group; and
       ``(B) meet other qualifications as determined by the 
     Director in consultation with the Training Curricula Working 
     Group.

     ``SEC. 599B. USE OF REGISTRIES TO TRACK TRAINED EMERGENCY 
                   HEALTH PROFESSIONALS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director, in consultation with the 
     mental and public health authorities of each State and 
     appropriate organizations (including the National Child 
     Traumatic Stress Network), shall coordinate the use of 
     existing emergency registries (including the Emergency System 
     for Advance Registration of Volunteer Health Professionals 
     (ESAR-VHP)) established to track medical and mental health 
     volunteers across all fields and specifically to track the 
     individuals in the State who have been trained using the 
     curricula approved by the NCPMHEP under section 599A. The 
     Director shall ensure that the data available through such 
     registries and used to track such trained individuals will be 
     recoverable and available in the event that such registries 
     become inoperable.
       ``(b) Use of Registry.--The tracking procedure under 
     subsection (a) shall be used by the Secretary, the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security, and the Governor of each State, for the 
     recruitment and deployment of trained emergency health 
     professionals in the event of bioterrorism or other public 
     health emergency.

     ``SEC. 599C. CLEARINGHOUSE FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH EMERGENCY 
                   PREPAREDNESS AND SERVICE DELIVERY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall establish and 
     maintain a central clearinghouse of educational materials, 
     guidelines, information, strategies, resources, and research 
     on public mental health emergency preparedness and service 
     delivery.
       ``(b) Duties.--The Director shall ensure that the 
     clearinghouse--
       ``(1) enables emergency health professionals and other 
     members of the public to increase their awareness and 
     knowledge of public mental health emergency preparedness and 
     service delivery, particularly for vulnerable populations 
     such as children, individuals with disabilities, individuals 
     with pre-existing mental health problems (including 
     substance-related disorders), older adults, caregivers, and 
     individuals living in poverty; and
       ``(2) provides such users with access to a range of public 
     mental health emergency resources and strategies to address 
     their community's unique circumstances and to improve their 
     skills and capacities for addressing mental health problems 
     in the event of bioterrorism or other public health 
     emergency.
       ``(c) Availability.--The Director shall ensure that the 
     clearinghouse--
       ``(1) is available on the Internet;
       ``(2) includes an interactive forum through which users' 
     questions are addressed;
       ``(3) is fully versed in resources available from 
     additional Government-sponsored or other relevant websites 
     that supply information on public mental health emergency 
     preparedness and service delivery; and
       ``(4) includes the training curricula approved by the 
     NCPMHEP under section 599A.
       ``(d) Clearinghouse Working Group.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director shall convene a 
     Clearinghouse Working Group from the panel of experts 
     described under section 599(c) to--
       ``(A) evaluate the educational materials, guidelines, 
     information, strategies, resources and research maintained in 
     the clearinghouse to ensure empirical validity; and
       ``(B) offer technical assistance to users of the 
     clearinghouse with respect to finding and selecting the 
     information and resources available through the clearinghouse 
     that would most effectively serve their community's needs in 
     preparing for, and delivering mental health services during, 
     bioterrorism or other public health emergencies.
       ``(2) Technical assistance.--The technical assistance 
     described under paragraph (1) shall include the use of 
     information from the clearinghouse to provide consultation, 
     direction, and guidance to State and local governments and 
     public and private agencies on the development of public 
     mental health emergency plans for activities involving 
     preparedness, mitigation, response, recovery, and evaluation.

     ``SEC. 599D. ANNUAL NATIONAL FORUM FOR PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH 
                   EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND SERVICE DELIVERY.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall organize an annual 
     national forum to address public mental health emergency 
     preparedness and service delivery for emergency health 
     professionals, researchers, scientists, experts in public 
     mental health emergency preparedness and service delivery, 
     and mental health professionals (including those with 
     expertise in psychological trauma and issues related to 
     vulnerable populations such as children, older adults, 
     caregivers, individuals with disabilities, pre-existing 
     mental health and substance abuse disorders, and individuals 
     living in poverty), as well as personnel from relevant 
     Federal (including the National Center for Post Traumatic 
     Stress Disorder), State, and local agencies (including 
     academic and community-based service centers affiliated with 
     the National Child Traumatic Stress Network), and other 
     governmental and nongovernmental organizations.
       ``(b) Purpose of Forum.--The national forum shall provide 
     the framework for bringing such individuals together to, 
     based on evidence-based or emerging best practices research 
     and practice, identify and address gaps in science, practice, 
     policy, and education, make recommendations for the revision 
     of training curricula and for the enhancement of mental 
     health interventions, as appropriate, and make other 
     recommendations as necessary.

     ``SEC. 599E. EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC MENTAL 
                   HEALTH EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND SERVICE 
                   DELIVERY EFFORTS.

       ``(a) In General.--The Director shall convene an Assessment 
     Working Group from the panel of experts described in section 
     599(c), who shall be independent from those individuals who 
     have developed the NCPMHEP, to evaluate the effectiveness of 
     the NCPMHEP's efforts and those across the Federal Government 
     in building the Nation's public mental health emergency 
     preparedness and service delivery capacity. Such group shall 
     include individuals who have expertise on how to assess the 
     effectiveness of the NCPMHEP's efforts on vulnerable 
     populations (such as children, older adults, caregivers, 
     individuals with disabilities, pre-existing mental health and 
     substance abuse disorders, and individuals living in 
     poverty).
       ``(b) Duties of the Assessment Working Group.--The 
     Assessment Working Group shall--
       ``(1) evaluate--
       ``(A) the effectiveness of each component of the NCPMHEP, 
     including the identification and development of training 
     curricula, the clearinghouse, and the annual national forum;
       ``(B) the effects of the training curricula on the skills, 
     knowledge, and attitudes of emergency health professionals 
     and on their delivery of mental health services in the event 
     of bioterrorism or other public health emergency;
       ``(C) the effects of the NCPMHEP on the capacities of State 
     and local government

[[Page 13461]]

     agencies to coordinate, mobilize, and deploy resources and to 
     deliver mental health services in the event of bioterrorism 
     or other public health emergency; and
       ``(D) other issues as determined by the Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Assessment Working Group; and
       ``(2) submit the annual report required under subsection 
     (c).
       ``(c) Annual Report and Information.--
       ``(1) Annual report.--On an annual basis, the Assessment 
     Working Group shall--
       ``(A) report to the Secretary and appropriate committees of 
     Congress the results of the evaluation by the Assessment 
     Working Group under this section; and
       ``(B) publish and disseminate the results of such 
     evaluation on as wide a basis as is practicable, including 
     through the NCPMHEP clearinghouse website under section 599C.
       ``(2) Information.--The results of the evaluation under 
     paragraph (1) shall be displayed on the Internet websites of 
     all entities with representatives participating in the 
     Assessment Working Group under this section, including the 
     Federal agencies responsible for funding the Working Group.
       ``(d) Recommendations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Based on the annual report, the 
     Director, in consultation with the Assessment Working Group, 
     shall make recommendations to the Secretary--
       ``(A) for improving--
       ``(i) the training curricula identified and approved by the 
     NCPMHEP;
       ``(ii) the NCPMHEP clearinghouse; and
       ``(iii) the annual forum of the NCPMHEP; and
       ``(B) regarding any other matter related to improving 
     mental health preparedness and service delivery in the event 
     of bioterrorism or other public health emergency in the 
     United States through the NCPMHEP.
       ``(2) Action by secretary.--Based on the recommendations 
     provided under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit 
     recommendations to Congress for any legislative changes 
     necessary to implement such recommendations.

     ``SEC. 599F. SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

       ``For purposes of this part, where ever there is a 
     reference to providing treatment, having expertise, or 
     provide training with respect to mental health, such 
     reference shall include providing treatment, having 
     expertise, or providing training relating to substance abuse, 
     if determined appropriate by the Secretary.

     ``SEC. 599G. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part--
       ``(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
       ``(2) such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2008 
     through 2011.''.

     SEC. 3. DISASTER MEDICAL ASSISTANCE TEAMS.

       Section 2812(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300hh-11(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Disaster medical assistance teams and mental health 
     professionals.--
       ``(A) Inclusion of mental health professionals.--
       ``(i) In general.--The National Disaster Medical System, in 
     consultation with the National Center for Public Mental 
     Health Emergency Preparedness (established under section 599) 
     and the Emergency Management Assistance Compact, shall--

       ``(I) identify licensed mental health professionals with 
     expertise in treating vulnerable populations, as identified 
     under section 599(b)(1); and
       ``(II) ensure that licensed mental health professionals 
     identified under subclause (I) are available in local 
     communities for deployment with Disaster Medical Assistance 
     Teams (including speciality mental health teams).

       ``(ii) Coordination.--The National Disaster Medical System 
     shall ensure that licensed mental health professionals are 
     included in the leadership of the National Disaster Medical 
     System, in coordination with the National Center for Public 
     Mental Health Emergency, to provide appropriate leadership 
     support for behavioral programs and personnel within the 
     Disaster Medical Assistance Teams.
       ``(B) Duties.--The principal duties of the licensed mental 
     health professionals identified and utilized under this 
     paragraph shall be to assist Disaster Medical Assistance 
     Teams in carrying out--
       ``(i) rapid psychological triage during an event of 
     bioterrorism or other public health emergency;
       ``(ii) crisis intervention prior to and during an event of 
     bioterrorism or other public health emergency;
       ``(iii) information dissemination and referral to specialty 
     care for survivors of an event of bioterrorism or other 
     public health emergency;
       ``(iv) data collection; and
       ``(v) follow-up consultations.
       ``(C) Training.--The National Disaster Medical System shall 
     coordinate with the National Center for Public Mental Health 
     Emergency Preparedness to ensure that, as part of their 
     training, Disaster Medical Assistance Teams include the 
     training curricula for emergency health professionals 
     established under section 599A.
       ``(D) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
       ``(i) Disaster medical assistance teams.--The term 
     `Disaster Medical Assistance Teams' means teams of 
     professional medical personnel that provide emergency medical 
     care during a disaster or public health emergency.
       ``(ii) Rapid psychological triage.--The term `rapid 
     psychological triage' means the accurate and rapid 
     identification of individuals at varied levels of risk in the 
     aftermath of a public health emergency, in order to provide 
     the appropriate, acute intervention for those affected 
     individuals.
       ``(iii) Data collection.--The term `data collection' means 
     the use of standardized, consistent, and accurate methods to 
     report evidence-based or emerging best practices, triage 
     mental health data obtained from survivors of an event of 
     bioterrorism or other public health emergency.''.
                                  ____

                                                          American


                                    Psychological Association,

                                                     May 22, 2007.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Clinton and Domenici: On behalf of the 
     148,000 members and affiliates of the American Psychological 
     Association (APA), I am writing to express our strong support 
     for the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 
     2007. This important legislation would significantly enhance 
     our preparedness, response, and recovery efforts to address 
     the mental health aspects of disasters and public health 
     emergencies.
       Both human made and natural disasters can have significant 
     effects on the mental health and well-being of individuals, 
     families, and communities. Among the most common mental 
     health problems encountered by disaster survivors are 
     posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, 
     and increased alcohol, tobacco, and substance use. For many, 
     the psychological effects of disasters may be temporary, 
     while others may require more long-term mental health 
     assistance.
       The Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007 
     would take several important steps toward enhancing our 
     Nation's public mental health preparedness and response 
     efforts in the event of a public health emergency. In 
     particular, this legislation would establish a National 
     Center for Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness to 
     prepare for and address the immediate and long-term mental 
     health needs of the general population and potentially 
     vulnerable subgroups, including children, individuals with 
     disabilities, individuals with pre-existing mental health 
     problems, older adults, caregivers, and individuals living in 
     poverty. This center would undertake several important 
     activities, including developing and disseminating training 
     curricula for emergency mental health professionals, 
     establishing a clearinghouse of mental health emergency 
     resources, organizing an annual national forum on mental 
     health emergency preparedness and response, and ensuring the 
     inclusion of mental health professionals within Disaster 
     Medical Assistance Teams.
       We commend you for your leadership and commitment to public 
     mental health preparedness and look forward to working with 
     you to ensure enactment of the Public Mental Health Emergency 
     Preparedness Act. If we can be of further assistance, please 
     feel free to contact Diane Elmore, Ph.D., in our Government 
     Relations Office.
           Sincerely,
     Gwendolyn Puryear Keita, Ph.D.,
                                               Executive Director,
     Public Interest Directorate.
                                  ____



                           American Public Health Association,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2007.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Clinton: On behalf of the American Public 
     Health Association (APHA), the oldest, largest and most 
     diverse organization of public health professionals in the 
     world, dedicated to protecting all Americans and their 
     communities from preventable, serious health threats and 
     assuring community-based health promotion and disease 
     prevention activities and preventive health services are 
     universally accessible in the United States, I write in 
     support of the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness 
     Act of 2007.
       Despite recent efforts to improve all-hazards preparedness 
     in this country, the lack of mental health services available 
     to victims of public health emergencies remains troubling. As 
     lessons learned from the hurricanes of 2005 and essentials to 
     adequately prepare for and respond to a flu pandemic are 
     incorporated into national, state and local all-hazards 
     preparedness plans, we must also ensure that mental health 
     emergency preparedness and delivery is integrated into all of 
     these plans, including the HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan and 
     the National Response Plan. To ensure that this happens, APHA 
     supports the provisions in this bill that would require the 
     inclusion of mental health professionals in National Disaster 
     Medical System (NDMS) leadership and Disaster Medical 
     Assistance Teams.
       To ensure that public health preparedness and response 
     activities are comprehensive

[[Page 13462]]

     and incorporate mental health needs and realities, APHA 
     supports the creation of a National Center for Public Mental 
     Health Emergency Preparedness (NCPMHEP) outlined in your 
     legislation. The NCPMHEP would be able to use existing data 
     to train emergency health professionals in the provision of 
     mental health services, coordinate mental health preparedness 
     and response activities with federal, state and local 
     partners and ensure that trained professionals in mental 
     health service delivery can be identified and quickly 
     mobilized.
       Thank you for your attention to and leadership on this 
     important public health issue. We look forward to working 
     with you to move this legislation forward this Congress. If 
     you have questions, or for additional information, please 
     contact me or have your staff contact Courtney Perlino.
           Sincerely,

                                      Georges C. Benjamin, MD,

                                           FACP, FACEP (Emeritus),
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                               Social Workers,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Clinton: I am writing on behalf of the 
     National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the largest 
     professional social work organization in the world with 
     150,000 members nationwide. NASW promotes, develops, and 
     protects the effective practice of social work services 
     throughout the country. NASW strongly supports the ``Public 
     Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 2007,'' and is 
     pleased to endorse it. We greatly appreciate your attention 
     and that of Senator Domenici to the important but often 
     neglected needs of emergency preparedness in mental health 
     services. NASW is particularly pleased to see that social 
     workers and other behavioral health professions would have an 
     enhanced role in the Nation's disaster response teams through 
     the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS).
       NASW, both nationally and in state chapters, was a resource 
     for the identification of trained mental health professionals 
     during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. In addition, several 
     NASW state chapters worked with local Red Cross organization 
     to ensure that mental health services were made available to 
     hurricane victims in affected states. We recognize the need 
     to be prepared to provide mental health training in 
     emergencies and the steps that are required to ensure the 
     availability of a wide network of trained professionals with 
     the skills to provide emergency mental health evaluation and 
     triage. We also understand the importance of providing 
     emergency mental health services.
       Your tireless efforts on behalf of consumers of behavioral 
     health services and professional social workers nationwide 
     are greatly appreciated by our members. We thank you for your 
     sponsorship of this legislation. NASW looks forward to 
     working with you on this and future issues of mutual concern.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Carolyn Polowy,
     General Counsel.
                                  ____

                                               American Academy of


                                Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,

                                     Washington, DC, May 22, 2007.
     Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Clinton: On behalf of the American Academy of 
     Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), I write in support 
     of the Public Mental Health Emergency Preparedness Act of 
     2007. The AACAP is a medical membership association 
     established by child and adolescent psychiatrists in 1953. 
     Now over 7,000 members strong, the AACAP is the leading 
     national medical association dedicated to treating and 
     improving the quality of life for the estimated 7-12 million 
     American youth under 18 years of age who are affected by 
     emotional, behavioral, developmental and mental disorders. 
     AACAP supports research, continuing medical education and 
     access to quality care.
       Tragic events, such as September 11 and Hurricane Katrina 
     are devastating to the mental health of children and 
     adolescents and could have significant alterations in child 
     and adolescent development. Changes in environmental and 
     societal patterns of parenting, socialization, education, 
     maturation, acculturation, and technology due to a traumatic 
     event all have significant ramifications. Too often mental 
     health services for children are fragmented. This bill 
     addresses the need to coordinate the delivery of mental 
     health services in times of public health emergencies, which 
     AACAP recognizes as elements of the treatment process.
       It is your continued leadership that will help ensure a 
     bright future for today's youth and the continued assurance 
     of mentally healthy Americans. We look forward to working 
     with you on this most important issue. Please contact Kristin 
     Kroeger Ptakowski, Director of Government Affairs, if you 
     have any questions concerning children's mental health 
     issues.
           Sincerely,
                                              Thomas Anders, M.D.,
     President.

                          ____________________