[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2389-2399]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. WYDEN:
  S. 387. A bill to prohibit the sale by the Department of Defense of 
parts for F-14 fighter aircraft; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to bring to light an important 
issue which threatens our national security and begs the attention of 
Congress. The legislation I propose today seeks to end the Iranian 
government's acquisition of sensitive military equipment by blocking 
the Pentagon's sale of F-14 fighter jet parts.
  It is the sensitive job of the Department of Defense to demilitarize 
and auction off surplus military equipment. However, recent 
investigations and reports have uncovered a frightening trend regarding 
the sale of F-14 ``Tomcat'' aircraft parts. U.S. customs agents have 
discovered F-14 parts being illegally shipped to Iran by brokers who 
bought F-14 surplus equipment from Department of Defense auctions.
  Other than the United States, Iran is the only Nation to fly the F-
14. The U.S. allowed Iran to buy 79 F-14s before its revolution in 
1979. Fortunately, most of Iran's F-14s are currently grounded for lack 
of parts.

[[Page 2390]]

  We know that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. We know 
that the Department of State has identified Iran as the most active 
state sponsor of terrorism. We know that the sale of spare parts for F-
14s could make it more difficult to confront the nuclear weapons 
capability of Iran. And yet F-14 parts are still being sold by the DoD.
  Iran's F-14s, especially with the parts to get more of them airborne, 
greatly strengthen its ground war potential, harming our national and 
global security. Our country should be doing everything possible to 
deny the brutal regime in Tehran access to spare parts for their F-14 
fleet.
  The Department of Defense will tell you that it is already taking 
action to control the sale of F-14 parts. A few times a year they 
change the restriction on the sale of F-14 parts. But history has shown 
us that these rules are not enough. The Department has been caught 
still selling F-14 parts, even when its rules forbid it. It has sold F-
14 parts to companies that have turned out to be fronts for the 
Iranians. More recently, the DoD sold sensitive technology, including 
classified F-14 parts to undercover GAO investigators.
  My intention with this bill is to make it crystal clear to the 
Department of Defense that it may not sell any F-14 parts to anyone for 
any reason. There should be no chance for the parts to make their way 
to the Iranians.
  Additionally, my bill would prohibit the export of any F-14 parts 
that have already been sold. This prevents the parts from ending up in 
Iran through even the most roundabout route.
  I am not trying to reform the entire military surplus sales process. 
I am confident that the Armed Services Committee will continue its 
investigations and propose some much needed changes. My bill would 
simply fix a very specific, but very important, problem: the sale of F-
14 components that end up in the hands of Iran.
  I urge the members of the Senate to support this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 387

       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 ``Stop Arming Iran Act''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON SALE BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OF PARTS 
                   FOR F-14 FIGHTER AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The Department of Defense is responsible for 
     demilitarizing and auctioning off sensitive surplus United 
     States military equipment.
       (2) F-14 ``Tomcat'' fighter aircraft have recently been 
     retired, and their parts are being made available by auction 
     in large quantities.
       (3) Iran is the only country, besides the United States, 
     flying F-14 fighter aircraft and is purchasing surplus parts 
     for such aircraft from brokers.
       (4) The Government Accountability Office has, as a result 
     of undercover investigative work, declared the acquisition of 
     the surplus United States military equipment, including parts 
     for F-14 fighter aircraft, to be disturbingly effortless.
       (5) Upon the seizure of such sensitive surplus military 
     equipment being sold to Iran, United States customs agents 
     have discovered these same items, having been resold by the 
     Department of Defense, being brokered illegally to Iran 
     again.
       (6) Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, and the 
     Department of State has identified Iran as the most active 
     state sponsor of terrorism.
       (7) Iran continues to provide funding, safe haven, 
     training, and weapons to known terrorist groups, including 
     Hizballah, HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the 
     Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
       (8) The sale of spare parts for F-14 fighter aircraft could 
     make it more difficult to confront the nuclear weapons 
     capability of Iran and would strengthen the ground war 
     capability of Iran. To prevent these threats to regional and 
     global security, the sale of spare parts for F-14 fighter 
     aircraft should be prohibited.
       (b) Prohibition on Sale by Department of Defense.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     and except as provided in paragraph (2), the Department of 
     Defense may not sell (whether directly or indirectly) any 
     parts for F-14 fighter aircraft, whether through the Defense 
     Reutilization and Marketing Service or through another agency 
     or element of the Department.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect 
     to the sale of parts for F-14 fighter aircraft to a museum or 
     similar organization located in the United States that is 
     involved in the preservation of F-14 fighter aircraft for 
     historical purposes.
       (c) Prohibition on Export License.--No license for the 
     export of parts for F-14 fighter aircraft to a non-United 
     States person or entity may be issued by the United States 
     Government.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Kyl, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. 
        Cornyn):
  S. 389. A bill to increase the number of Federal judgeships, in 
accordance with recommendations by the Judicial Conference, in 
districts that have an extraordinarily high immigration caseload; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DOMENICIl. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that authorizes the Federal judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial 
Conference for our U.S. District Courts that are overloaded with 
immigration cases.
  It is imperative to equip our Federal agencies with the assets they 
need to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws, including 
courts which must adjudicate criminal immigration cases that appear on 
their dockets. This includes our U.S. District Courts, which must try 
repeat immigration law violators who are charged with a felony in U.S. 
District Court.
  The legislation I am introducing today creates eleven new Federal 
judgeships recommended by the Judicial Conference for the four U.S. 
Districts in which more than 50 percent of their criminal cases are 
immigration cases. Each of these Districts shares a border Mexico.
  In fiscal year 2004, the Western District of Texas had 5,599 criminal 
case filings, 3,688 of those cases, or 65 percent, dealt with 
immigration. The District Court of Arizona had 4,007 criminal filings, 
of which 2,404 cases, that's 59 percent, were immigration filings. The 
Southern District of California had 2,206 immigration filings, 64 
percent of the 3,400 total criminal filings. Lastly, the District of 
New Mexico had 2,497 criminal filings, 60 percent, or 1,502 cases, were 
immigration cases.
  Based on these caseloads, we should already be giving these Districts 
new judgeships. But to increase border security and immigration 
enforcement efforts, as we have over the past few years, without 
equipping these courts to handle the even larger immigration caseloads 
that they are expected to face would amount to willful negligence.
  The New Mexico District Chief Judge, Martha Vazquez, wrote me a 
letter in May of 2006 about the situation her District faces. Judge 
Vazquez wrote: ``As it is, the burden on Article III Judges in this 
District is considerable. This District ranks first among all districts 
in criminal filings per judgeship: 405 criminal filings compared to the 
national average of 87. As in all federal districts along the southwest 
border, the majority of cases filed in this District relate to 
immigration offenses under United States Code, Title 8 and drug 
offenses arising under Title 21. Immigration and drug cases account for 
eighty-five percent of the caseload in the District of New Mexico. . . 
. In fiscal year 1997, there were 240 immigration felony filings in the 
District of New Mexico. By fiscal year 2005, the number of immigration 
felony filings increased to 1,826, which is an increase of 661 
percent.''
  The Albuquerque Tribune has also documented the burden on our 
Southwest border District Courts. An April 17, 2006 article entitled 
``Judges See Ripple Effect of Policy on Immigration,'' stated: ``U.S. 
District Chief Judge Martha Vazquez of Santa Fe oversees a court that 
faces a rising caseload from illegal border crossings and related 
crime. And help from Washington is by no means certain. . . . From 
Sept. 30, 1999 to Sept. 30, 2004 (the end of the fiscal year), the 
caseload in the New Mexico federal district court increased 57.5 
percent, from 2,804 to 4,416. In the 2004 fiscal year alone,

[[Page 2391]]

2,126 felony cases were heard, almost half of all cases in the entire 
10th Circuit, which includes Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah and 
Wyoming. Most typical immigration cases go before an immigration judge, 
and the subjects are deported. But people deported once and caught 
crossing illegally again can be charged with a felony. And that brings 
the defendant into federal district court. Those are the cases driving 
up New Mexico's caseload . . . Some days as many as 90 defendants crowd 
the courtroom in Las Cruces. . . . The same problems are afflicting 
federal border courts in Arizona, California, and Texas.''
  Similar problems were documented in the May 23, 2006 Reuters article 
``Bush Border Patrol Plan to Pressure Courts'' which said: ``President 
George W. Bush's plan to send thousands of National Guard troops to the 
U.S.-Mexico border could spark a surge in immigration cases and U.S. 
courts are ill prepared to handle them. . . . Even without the stepped-
up security at the border, federal courts in southern California, 
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have been overburdened. Carelli [a 
spokesman for U.S. federal courts] said those five judicial districts, 
out of 94 nationwide, account for 34 percent of all criminal cases 
moving through U.S. courts. . . . Most immigrants caught crossing 
illegally are ordered out of the country without prosecution. But that 
still leaves a growing pile of cases involving illegals who are being 
prosecuted after being caught multiple times or those accused of other 
crimes. Nationwide, each U.S. judge handles an average of 87 cases a 
year. But along the southern border, even before Bush's plan moves 
forward, the average is around 300 per judge, Carelli said.''
  Lastly, I recently heard first-hand about this problem from a Federal 
judge in New Mexico. He told me that he travels almost 200 miles to 
hear cases in Southern New Mexico. Many of the situations he sees 
involve mass arraignments because there are so many defendants in the 
system. He is not alone in this arrangement; other Federal judges drive 
almost 300 miles to hear cases in the Southern part of my home State. 
This is a dire situation that must be addressed.
  The United States Congress must address the overwhelming immigration 
caseload our southwestern border U.S. District Courts face. The bill I 
am introducing today does that by authorizing the nine permanent and 
two temporary judgeships recommended by the 2005 Judicial Conference 
for the four U.S. Districts in which the immigration caseloads total 
more than 50 percent of those Districts' total criminal caseload.
  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. 389

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

     SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGESHIPS.

       The President shall appoint, by and with the advice and 
     consent of the Senate, such additional district court judges 
     as are necessary to carry out the 2005 recommendations of the 
     Judicial Conference for district courts in which the criminal 
     immigration filings represented more than 50 percent of all 
     criminal filings for the 12-month period ending September 30, 
     2004.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BENNETT (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
  S. 390. A bill to direct the exchange of certain land in Grand, San 
Juan, and Uintah Counties, Utah, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to reintroduce 
the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2007, together with my 
colleague Senator Hatch. This legislation will ensure the protection of 
critical lands along the Colorado River corridor in southeastern Utah 
and will help provide important funding for Utah's school children.
  In Utah, we treasure our children's education. A key component of our 
education system is the 3.5 million acres of school trust lands 
scattered throughout the State. Upon Utah's admission to the Union in 
1896, these lands were dedicated to support public education. Revenue 
from the trust lands, whether from grazing, forestry, surface leasing, 
or mineral development, is placed in the State School Fund. This fund 
is a permanent, income-producing endowment created by Congress to fund 
Utah's public education. Unfortunately, the majority of these lands are 
surrounded by public lands, making responsible management very 
difficult. It is critical to both the State of Utah and the Bureau of 
Land Management that we consolidate their respective lands to ensure 
that both public agencies are permitted to fulfill their mandates.
  The legislation we are introducing today is yet another chapter in 
our State's long history of consolidating these State lands for the 
financial well-being of our education system. These efforts allow the 
Federal land management agencies to consolidate public lands in 
environmentally-sensitive areas that can then be reasonably managed. We 
see this exchange as a win-win solution for the State of Utah and its 
school children, as well as the Department of the Interior, the 
caretaker of our public lands.
  In 1998, Congress passed the first major Utah school trust land 
exchange which consolidated hundreds of thousands of acres. Again in 
2000, Congress enacted an exchange consolidating another 100,000 acres. 
I was proud to play a role in those efforts, and the bill we are 
introducing today is yet another step in the long journey toward 
fulfilling the promise Congress made to Utah's school children in 1896.
  Utah's School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration manages 
some of the most spectacular lands in America, located along the 
Colorado River in southeastern Utah. This legislation will ensure that 
places like Westwater Canyon of the Colorado River, the world famous 
Kokopelli and Slickrock biking trails, some of the largest natural rock 
arches in the United States, wilderness study areas, and viewsheds for 
Arches National Park will be traded into Federal ownership and for the 
benefit of future generations. At the same time, the school children of 
Utah will receive mineral and development lands that are not 
environmentally-sensitive, and where responsible development makes 
sense. This will be an equal value exchange, with approximately 40,000 
acres exchanged on both sides, giving taxpayers and the school children 
of Utah a fair deal. Moreover, the legislation establishes a common-
sense valuation process for resources that are often either overlooked 
or overvalued because of their highly-speculative nature.
  This legislation represents a truly collaborative process that has 
included local governments, the State, the recreation and environmental 
communities, and other interested parties. We also worked closely with 
the Department of the Interior on proper valuation in the appraisal of 
the lands. In a hearing held before the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee on May 24, 2006, the Department of the Interior 
expressed their support for the bill and said that this land exchange 
will resolve management issues, improve public access, and facilitate 
greater resource protection. We look forward to working with the 
appropriate committees toward a successful resolution of this proposed 
exchange during this Congress.
  I ask my colleagues to support our effort to fund the education of 
our children in Utah and to protect some of this nation's truly great 
land. I urge support of the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 
2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN:
  S. 392. A bill to ensure payment of United States assessments for 
United Nations peacekeeping operations for the 2005 through 2008 time 
period; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to ensure 
that the United States does not fall further into debt at the United 
Nations, and to pay the debt that we have accrued since January 1, 
2006.

[[Page 2392]]

  For over a year, we have not been paying our full contribution to the 
U.N. for its peacekeeping operations--for missions in places like 
Lebanon, Haiti, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kosovo--that 
advance our national interests and spread the burden of keeping the 
peace among other nations. We are approximately $80 million in debt, 
and the number grows every month as new bills come in for peacekeeping 
operations.
  Here is why.
  In 1994, Congress passed a law limiting U.S. payments for U.N. 
peacekeeping at 25 percent after fiscal year 1995. The United Nations 
continued to bill the United States at 31 percent. As a result, a debt 
accrued--that is, the gap between the 25 percent allowed under U.S. 
law, and the 31 percent we were charged by the U.N.
  In 1999, when Congress approved the ``Helms-Biden'' law, it 
authorized the repayment of U.S. arrears to the U.N. conditioned on 
certain reforms in the U.N. system. One of those reforms was a 
negotiated reduction of the U.S. peacekeeping rate down to 25 percent. 
Through negotiations in 2000, U.S. Ambassador Holbrooke succeeded in 
reducing the U.S. assessments for peacekeeping to just over 27 percent.
  In 2001, Congress amended the Helms-Biden law to allow the arrears 
payments to be provided to the U.N., even though Ambassador Holbrooke 
had not reached the target of 25 percent. But the original 1994 law 
limiting our payments to 25 percent was never repealed.
  In the past few years, Congress has amended the 1994 law on a 
temporary basis by raising the 25 percent limitation to conform it to 
the rate negotiated by Ambassador Holbrooke, but the most recent 
temporary change in law expired on December 31, 2005.
  Therefore, the law today is this: the United States may not pay more 
than 25 percent for peacekeeping, even though the United Nations 
assesses the United States at a higher rate.
  Mr. President this is a problem. At a time when our government 
continues to seek important reforms at the United Nations, it is a 
mistake for us to continue to fall short on our dues. Rather than 
encourage reform, it may give other countries an excuse to avoid it. 
How can we, in good faith, fail to pay our bills while at the same time 
push the U.N. to get its financial house in order?
  More important, U.N. peacekeeping operations advance America's 
national security. If the U.N. didn't do them, we might have to do so. 
The U.N. `blue helmets' are literally on the front lines in conflicts 
that are the worst of the worst: protecting civilians, monitoring 
cease-fires, clearing mine fields, and disarming combatants. Right now, 
the United States continues to seek support at the U.N. for a robust 
mission in Darfur. We have voted time and again in the Security 
Council, and rightfully so, to support these critical missions.
  Through U.N. peacekeeping, the U.S. contributes to international 
peace and stability where we have critical foreign policy interests, 
while sharing the human, political and financial costs with other 
nations. We should not shortchange these operations.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 393. A bill to transfer unspent funds for grants by the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, the Office of Justice Programs, 
and the Office on Violence Against Women to the Edward Byrne Memorial 
Justice Assistance Grant Program; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
restore critical funding to one of our Nation's most effective drug 
enforcement tools, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
Program. My bill, the Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance 
Act of 2007, will bring a desperately needed infusion of cash into this 
critical local law enforcement assistance program.
  The Byrne grant program provides funding for local drug task forces 
all over the country. These local drug task forces are critical to 
creating regional cooperation and to fighting the manufacture, 
distribution, and use of methamphetamine.
  A survey by the Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy found that in 
fiscal year 2004 Byrne JAG dollars funded 4,316 police officers and 
prosecutors working on 764 drug enforcement task forces. The study also 
found that Byrne JAG funding led to 221,000 arrests in 45 states, the 
seizure of 5.5 million grams of methamphetamine, and the breakup of 
almost 9,000 methamphetamine labs.
  Yet the program has suffered draconian cuts over the past 4 years. 
Between 2003 and 2006 the President and the Attorney General have 
refused to provide a single dollar for Byrne local law enforcement 
funding. As a result, funding for the Byrne program has been slashed by 
almost 60 percent from $1 billion dollars in 2003 to just $416 million 
in 2006.
  I hear on a weekly basis from Sheriffs and other law enforcement 
officials in Iowa how hard these cuts are hitting them. Over the past 
year, Iowa has had to absorb a 42 percent cut in Byrne funding. That 
translates to less law enforcement officers and less regional 
cooperation in finding and stopping that meth that continues to flood 
the State of Iowa. I recently heard from Story County Sheriff Paul 
Fitzgerald that his agency alone will lose two drug task force agents 
this year, a statistic that is being repeated in almost every county 
across my State.
  The anecdotal evidence from Iowa law enforcement is clearly reflected 
at the national level. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform 
Crime Reports recently found that violent crime in the United States 
increased 2.5 percent in 2005, and an additional 3.7 percent in the 
first half of 2006, the largest increase in 15 years! The increase was 
much more severe in the meth plagued Midwest with violent crime up 5.7 
percent in 2005.
  You don't need a side by side chart to understand the connection 
between drastic reductions in federal funding for local law enforcement 
and rising crime rates!
  At the same time, a recent report by the Department of Justice 
Inspector General found that the Department of Justice has not been 
doing a particularly effective job of administering the grants within 
its jurisdiction. The Inspector General found that just over $170 
million expired grant funding is sitting at DOJ. Some of this funding 
is for grants that expired as long as five years ago!
  My bill simply takes this unused money and puts it into the Byrne 
grant program. Specifically, the legislation transfers all balances on 
COPS and Office of Justice Program grants that have been expired for 
more than 90 days and all Office of Violence Against Women grants that 
have been expired for more than 2 years, to the Byrne JAG program for 
fiscal year 2007. These expired grant funds are currently sitting in 
DOJ coffers and cannot legally be used by the grantee, and the funds 
would ultimately revert to the treasury. My bill instead puts the money 
to good use in offsetting some of the most drastic consequences of cuts 
to the Byrne program.
  While reallocating these amounts to Byrne JAG will make only a dent 
in the massive budget cuts of recent years, the Emergency Local Law 
Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007 is an important first step and 
sends an immediate message to line officers overwhelmed by the 
unstoppable flow of meth into our States that we are going to help.
  I am hopeful that in this new Congress the President and the Congress 
will more adequately fund crucial law enforcement programs like Byrne 
JAG. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to join me in demonstrating 
a commitment to local law enforcement and to our continuing fight 
against methamphetamine by coming together to quickly pass the 
Emergency Local Law Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007.
  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. 393

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

[[Page 2393]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Local Law 
     Enforcement Byrne Assistance Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) A report by the Inspector General of the Department of 
     Justice documents that the Office of Justice Programs, the 
     Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and the 
     Office on Violence Against Women of the Department of Justice 
     have failed to close out and deobligate over $160,000,000 in 
     expired grant funds and that these funds have not been 
     redirected to other programs or returned to the Treasury.
       (2) Between fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2006, funding 
     for the formula grant program of the Edward Byrne Memorial 
     Justice Assistance Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3750 et seq.) has been reduced by over 50 percent, 
     from $900,000,000 to $416,000,000.
       (3) According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
     Uniform Crime Reports, violent crime in the United States 
     increased 2.5 percent in 2005, and an additional 3.7 percent 
     in the first half of 2006. In the Midwest, which continues to 
     struggle with a methamphetamine epidemic, violent crime 
     increased 5.7 percent between 2004 and 2005.

     SEC. 3. UNSPENT GRANTS.

       (a) In General.--All amounts described in subsection (b) 
     shall be transferred for use for grants under the formula 
     grant program of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 
     Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et 
     seq.), to remain available until expended.
       (b) Amounts Covered.--The amounts described in this 
     subsection are any unexpended amounts for--
       (1) any covered grant administered by the Office of 
     Community Oriented Policing Services;
       (2) any covered grant administered by the Office of Justice 
     Programs; and
       (3) any covered grant administered by the Office on 
     Violence Against Women for which the grant expired not less 
     than 2 years before the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``covered 
     grant'' means a grant--
       (1) that has expired but has not been closed out; or
       (2)(A) that has expired and been closed out; and
       (B) the remaining funds of which have not been deobligated.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Levin, Ms. Collins, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr. 
        Menendez):
  S. 394. A bill to amend the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act 
of 1958 to ensure the humane slaughter of nonambulatory livestock, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 
Forestry.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today, along with my colleagues, 
Senators Ted Stevens, R-AK, Carl Levin, D-MI, Susan Collins, R-ME, 
Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, John Kerry, D-MA, Barbara Boxer, D-CA, Dianne 
Feinstein, D-CA, and Robert Menendez, D-NJ to introduce the Downed 
Animal and Food Safety Protection Act of 2007, legislation intended to 
protect people from the unnecessary spread of disease. This bill, which 
has bipartisan support, would prohibit the use of nonambulatory animals 
for human consumption.
  Nonambulatory animals, also known as downed animals, are livestock 
such as cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, mules, or other equines 
that are too sick to stand or walk unassisted. Many of these animals 
are dying from infectious diseases and present a significant pathway 
for the spread of disease.
  The safety of our Nation's food supply is of the utmost importance. 
With the presence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, also known 
as mad-cow disease, and other strains of transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathies, TSE, which are related animal diseases found not only 
in nearby countries but also in the United States, it is important that 
we take all measures necessary to ensure that our food is safe.
  Currently, before slaughter, the United States Department of 
Agriculture's, USDA, Food Safety Inspection Service, FSIS, diverts 
downer livestock only if they exhibit clinical signs associated with 
BSE. Routinely, BSE is not correctly distinguished from many other 
diseases and conditions that show similar symptoms. The ante-mortem 
inspection that is currently used in the United States is very similar 
to the inspection process in Europe, which has proved to be inadequate 
for detecting BSE. Consequently, if BSE were present in a U.S. downed 
animal, it could currently be offered for slaughter. If the animal 
showed no clinical signs of the disease, the animal would then pass an 
ante-mortem inspection, making the diseased animal available for human 
consumption. The BSE agent could then cross-contaminate the normally 
safe muscle tissue during slaughter and processing. The disposal of 
downer livestock would ensure that the BSE agent would not be recycled 
to contaminate otherwise safe meat.
  There are other TSE diseases already known to us such as scrapie that 
affects sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease in deer and elk, and 
classic Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans, all of which are present 
in the United States. Because our knowledge of such diseases is 
limited, the inclusion of horses, mules, swine, and other equine in 
this act are a necessary precaution. This precautionary measure is 
needed in order to ensure that the human population is not affected by 
diseased livestock. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, has already 
created regulations that prevent imports of all live cattle and other 
ruminants and certain ruminant products from countries where BSE is 
known to exist. In 1997, the FDA placed a prohibition on the use of all 
mammalian protein, with a few exceptions, in animal feed given to 
cattle and other ruminants. These regulations are a good start in 
protecting us from the possible spread of BSE, however, they do not go 
far enough, because they still allow the processing of downer cattle.
  According to a study performed by the Harvard School of the Public 
Health in conjunction with the USDA and surveillance data from European 
countries, downer cattle are at high risk for BSE. According to the 
Harvard Study, the removal of nonambulatory cattle from the population 
intended for slaughter would reduce the probability of spreading BSE by 
82 percent. The USDA and the FDA have acknowledged that downed animals 
serve as a potential pathway for the spread of BSE. While both have 
entertained the idea of prohibiting the rendering of downed cattle, 
they have taken no formal action. It is imperative that we, Congress, 
ensure that downer livestock does not enter our food chain, and the 
best way to accomplish this task is to codify the prohibition of downer 
livestock from entering our food supply.
  The Downed Animal Protection Act fills a gap in the current USDA and 
FDA regulations. The bill calls for the humane euthanization of 
nonambulatory livestock, both for interstate and foreign commerce. The 
euthanization of nonambulatory livestock would remove this high risk 
population from the portion of livestock reserved for our consumption. 
Due to the presence of other TSE diseases found throughout other 
species of livestock, all animals that fit under the definition of 
livestock will be included in this bill.
  The benefits of my bill are numerous, for both the public and the 
industry. On the face of it, the bill will prevent needless suffering 
by humanely euthanizing nonambulatory animals. The removal of downed 
animals from our products will insure that they are safer and of better 
quality. The reduction in the likelihood of disease would result in 
safer working conditions for persons handling livestock. This added 
protection against disease would help the flow of livestock and 
livestock products in interstate and foreign commerce, making commerce 
in livestock more easily attainable.
  Some individuals fear that this bill would place an excessive 
financial burden on the livestock industry. I want to remind my 
colleagues that one single downed cow in Canada diagnosed with BSE in 
2003 shut down the world's third largest beef exporter. It is estimated 
that the Canadian beef industry lost more than $1 billion when more 
than 30 countries banned Canadian cattle and beef upon the discovery of 
BSE. As the Canadian cattle industry continues to recover from its 
economic loss, it is prudent for the United States to be proactive in 
preventing BSE and other animal diseases from entering our food chain.

[[Page 2394]]

  Today, the USDA has increased its efforts to test approximately ten 
percent of downed cattle per year for BSE. However, it is my 
understanding that the USDA is looking to revisit this issue. I do not 
believe that now is the time to lower our defenses. We must protect our 
livestock industry and human health from diseases such as BSE. This 
bill reduces the threat of passing diseases from downed livestock to 
our food supply. It ensures downed animals will not be used for human 
consumption. It also requires higher standards for food safety and 
protects the human population from diseases and the livestock industry 
from economic distress.
  American consumers should be able to rely on the Federal Government 
to ensure that meat and meat by-products are safe for human 
consumption. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill. I ask 
unanimous consent that the text of the measure 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. 394

       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 ``Downed Animal and Food 
     Safety Protection Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.

       (a) Finding.--Congress finds that the humane euthanization 
     of nonambulatory livestock in interstate and foreign 
     commerce--
       (1) prevents needless suffering;
       (2) results in safer and better working conditions for 
     persons handling livestock;
       (3) brings about improvement of products and reduces the 
     likelihood of the spread of diseases that have a great and 
     deleterious impact on interstate and foreign commerce in 
     livestock; and
       (4) produces other benefits for producers, processors, and 
     consumers that tend to expedite an orderly flow of livestock 
     and livestock products in interstate foreign commerce.
       (b) Declaration of Policy.--It is the policy of the United 
     States that all nonambulatory livestock in interstate and 
     foreign commerce shall be immediately and humanely euthanized 
     when such livestock become nonambulatory.

     SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL SLAUGHTER PRACTICES INVOLVING NONAMBULATORY 
                   LIVESTOCK.

       (a) In General.--Public Law 85-765 (commonly known as the 
     ``Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958'') (7 U.S.C. 1901 
     et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 2 (7 U.S.C. 
     1902) the following:

     ``SEC. 3. NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Covered entity.--The term `covered entity' means--
       ``(A) a stockyard;
       ``(B) a market agency;
       ``(C) a dealer;
       ``(D) a packer;
       ``(E) a slaughter facility; or
       ``(F) an establishment.
       ``(2) Establishment.--The term `establishment' means an 
     establishment that is covered by the Federal Meat Inspection 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       ``(3) Humanely euthanize.--The term `humanely euthanize' 
     means to immediately render an animal unconscious by 
     mechanical, chemical, or other means, with this state 
     remaining until the death of the animal.
       ``(4) Nonambulatory livestock.--The term `nonambulatory 
     livestock' means any cattle, sheep, swine, goats, or horses, 
     mules, or other equines, that will not stand and walk 
     unassisted.
       ``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       ``(b) Humane Treatment, Handling, and Disposition.--The 
     Secretary shall promulgate regulations to provide for the 
     humane treatment, handling, and disposition of all 
     nonambulatory livestock by covered entities, including a 
     requirement that nonambulatory livestock be humanely 
     euthanized.
       ``(c) Humane Euthanasia.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), when an animal 
     becomes nonambulatory, a covered entity shall immediately 
     humanely euthanize the nonambulatory livestock.
       ``(2) Disease testing.--Paragraph (1) shall not limit the 
     ability of the Secretary to test nonambulatory livestock for 
     a disease, such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy.
       ``(d) Movement.--
       ``(1) In general.--A covered entity shall not move 
     nonambulatory livestock while the nonambulatory livestock are 
     conscious.
       ``(2) Unconsciousness.--In the case of any nonambulatory 
     livestock that are moved, the covered entity shall ensure 
     that the nonambulatory livestock remain unconscious until 
     death.
       ``(e) Inspections.--
       ``(1) In general.--It shall be unlawful for an inspector at 
     an establishment to pass through inspection any nonambulatory 
     livestock or carcass (including parts of a carcass) of 
     nonambulatory livestock.
       ``(2) Labeling.--An inspector or other employee of an 
     establishment shall label, mark, stamp, or tag as `inspected 
     and condemned' any material described in paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendment made by subsection (a) takes effect on the date 
     that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Regulations.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall 
     promulgate final regulations to implement the amendment made 
     by subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 396. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to treat 
controlled foreign corporations in tax havens as domestic corporations; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I'm joined by Senators Carl Levin of 
Michigan and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin in re-introducing 
legislation that we believe will help the Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS) combat offshore tax haven abuses and ensure that U.S. 
multinational companies pay the U.S. taxes that they rightfully owe.
  Every year, tens of millions of taxpayers work through piles of 
complicated IRS instructions and complex forms to prepare and file 
their tax returns to fulfill their taxpaying responsibility. Some tax 
experts have estimated that taxpayers spend over $100 billion and more 
than 6 billion hours trying to comply with their Federal tax 
obligation.
  That's why every American has a right to be angry when they hear 
repeated press accounts of corporate taxpayers that are shirking their 
tax obligations by actively shifting their profits to foreign tax 
havens or using other inappropriate tax avoidance techniques. The bill 
that we are re-introducing today is a simple and straightforward way to 
try to tackle the offshore tax haven problem. It is virtually identical 
to our bill in the 109th Congress, S. 779, but we have granted 
potentially impacted companies an extra year to comply with its 
provisions.
  We have known for many years that some very profitable U.S. 
multinational businesses are using offshore tax havens to avoid paying 
their fair share of U.S. taxes. But in the face of these reports, the 
Congress and the administration have shown little interest in stopping 
this hemorrhaging of tax revenues. In fact, a growing body of evidence 
suggests that the tax haven problem is getting much worse and may be 
costing the U.S. Treasury tens of billions of dollars every year.
  Although the Congress did pass legislation a few years ago, which I 
supported, that addresses a narrow problem of a couple dozen corporate 
expatriates that reincorporated overseas, that legislation did nothing 
to deal with the problem of U.S. companies that are setting up tax 
haven subsidiaries offshore to avoid their taxpaying responsibilities 
in this country.
  Around the time of the debate on corporate inversions, a New York 
Times article got it right when it suggested that ``instead of moving 
headquarters offshore, many companies are simply placing patents on 
drugs, ownership of corporate logos, techniques for manufacturing 
processes and other intangible assets in tax havens . . . The companies 
then charge their subsidiaries in higher-tax locales, including the 
U.S., for the use of these intellectual properties. This allows the 
companies to take profits in these havens and pay far less in taxes.''
  How pervasive is the tax haven subsidiary problem? A couple of years 
ago, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm 
of Congress, issued a report that Senator Levin and I requested that 
gives some insight to the potential magnitude of this tax avoidance 
activity.
  The GAO found that 59 out of the 100 largest publicly-traded Federal 
contractors in 2001--with tens of billions of dollars of Federal 
contracts in 2001-- had established hundreds of subsidiaries located in 
offshore tax havens. According to the GAO, Exxon-Mobil Corporation, the 
21st largest publicly traded Federal contractor in 2001, has some 11 
tax-haven subsidiaries in the

[[Page 2395]]

Bahamas. The same report revealed that the Halliburton Company has 17 
tax-haven subsidiaries, including 13 in the Cayman Islands, a country 
that has never imposed a corporate income tax, as well as 2 in 
Liechtenstein and 2 in Panama. And the now infamous Enron Corporation 
had 1,300 different foreign entities, including some 441 located in the 
Cayman Islands.
  But the poster child for offshore tax haven abuses, in my opinion, is 
a five-story building located in the Cayman Islands that thousands of 
companies call home. According to a very good investigative report 
published by David Evans with Bloomberg News in the summer of 2004, 
there is a building named the Ugland House in Grand Cayman that is used 
as the address of 12,748 companies.
  In fact, nearly half of the money U.S. companies earned overseas is 
accounted for in tax havens like the Cayman Islands. A former Joint 
Committee on Taxation economist released a study that looked at the 
amount of profits that U.S. companies are shifting to offshore tax 
havens. He found that U.S. multinational companies had moved hundreds 
of billions of dollars in profits to tax havens for years 1999-2002, 
the latest years for which IRS data was available.
  The legislation we are re-introducing today would help put a stop to 
these tax avoidance schemes. Specifically, our legislation denies tax 
benefits, namely tax deferral, to U.S. multinational companies that set 
up controlled foreign corporations in tax haven countries. This tracks 
the same general approach in legislation passed by the Congress and 
enacted into law that was designed to curb the problem of corporate 
inversions. Our bill builds upon the good work of Senators Baucus and 
Grassley and other members of the Senate Finance Committee by extending 
similar tax policy changes to cover the case of U.S. companies and 
their tax haven subsidiaries.
  Specifically, our legislation would treat U.S. controlled foreign 
subsidiaries that are set up in tax haven countries--but are not 
engaged in a real and active business--as domestic companies for U.S. 
tax purposes. In other words, we would simply treat these companies as 
if they never left the United States, which is essentially the case in 
these tax avoidance motivated transactions. The bill's list of specific 
tax haven countries subjected to the new rule is based upon the 
previous work by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and 
Development. However, our legislation does give the Secretary of the 
Treasury the ability to add or remove a foreign country from this list 
in appropriate cases. We also give businesses plenty of time, two 
additional years through December 31, 2008, to restructure their tax 
haven operations if they so choose.
  As mentioned, our legislation effectively ends the deferral tax 
benefit for U.S. companies that shift income to offshore inactive tax 
haven subsidiaries. This means, for example, that any efforts by a U.S. 
company to move profits to the subsidiary through transfer pricing 
schemes will not work because the income earned by the subsidiary would 
still be immediately taxable by the United States. Likewise, any 
efforts to move otherwise active income earned by a U.S. company in a 
high-tax foreign country to a tax haven would cause the income to be 
immediately taxable by the United States. Under this bill, companies 
that try to move intangible assets--and the income they produce--to tax 
havens would be unsuccessful because that income would still be 
immediately taxable by the United States. The Joint Tax Committee says 
our legislation that will help close this tax shelter game will prevent 
these companies from draining some $15 billion in revenues from the 
U.S. Treasury over the next decade.
  Let me be very clear about one thing. This legislation will not 
adversely impact U.S. companies with controlled foreign subsidiaries 
that are located in tax havens and doing legitimate and substantial 
business. The legislation expressly exempts a U.S.-controlled foreign 
subsidiary from its tax rule changes when all of its income is derived 
from the active conduct of a trade or business within a listed tax 
haven country.
  In 2002, then-IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti told Congress that 
``nothing undermines confidence in the tax system more than the 
impression that the average honest taxpayer has to pay his or her taxes 
while more wealthy or unscrupulous taxpayers are allowed to get away 
with not paying.'' He is absolutely right. It's grossly unfair to ask 
our Main Street businesses to operate at a competitive disadvantage to 
large multinational businesses simply because our tax authorities are 
unable to grapple with the growing offshore tax avoidance problem. It 
is also outrageous that tens of millions of working families who pay 
their taxes on time every year are shouldering the tax burden of large 
profitable U.S. multinational companies that use tax haven 
subsidiaries.
  In conclusion, it is my hope that the White House and Congress in a 
new spirit of bipartisanship will help in our effort to get this needed 
tax law change enacted into law. I urge my colleagues to support this 
effort by cosponsoring this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Thomas, 
        and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 398. Abill to amend the Indian Child Protection and Family 
Violence Prevention Act to identify and remove barriers to reducing 
child abuse, to provide for examinations of certain children, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce with 
Senator McCain and other senators the Indian Child Protection and 
Family, Violence Prevention Act Amendments of 2007. The bill we 
introduce today is virtually identical to legislation which the Senate 
adopted last year to amend and reauthorize the Indian Child Protection 
and Family Violence Prevention Act of 1990. The primary goals of that 
Act were to reduce the incidence of child abuse, and mandate the 
reporting and tracking of child abuse in Indian Country.
  The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act 
Amendments would authorize a study to identify impediments to the 
reduction of child abuse in Indian Country, as well as require data 
collection and annual reporting to Congress concerning child abuse in 
Indian Country; provide additional safeguards for the privacy of 
information about a child by local law enforcement and child protective 
services; provide for more involvement by the FBI and the Attorney 
General in documenting incidents of child abuse on Indian reservations; 
and authorize the Indian Health Service to use telemedicine in 
connection with examinations of abused Indian children. The bill would 
also authorize background investigations for employees and volunteers 
who work with Indian children, amend the Major Crimes Act to 
criminalize acts of child abuse and neglect in Indian Country, and 
authorize several treatment programs for Indian children who have been 
victimized.
  I particularly appreciate that this reauthorization legislation 
addresses a related issue about which I have deep concern--the epidemic 
of youth suicide in many reservation communities. Indian Country has 
higher rates of youth suicide, as well as of child abuse, than other 
American population groups. Often, children who attempt suicide have 
been abused by a family or community member. This bill would authorize 
professionals trained in behavioral health, including suicide 
prevention and treatment, to be included on the staff of regional 
Indian Child Resource and Family Services Centers authorized under the 
Act.
  I am hopeful that the Senate will act quickly this session to 
authorize the additional protections for Native American children that 
would be provided by the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence 
Prevention Act Amendments of 2007. 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 2396]]



                                 S. 398

       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 ``Indian Child Protection and 
     Family Violence Prevention Act Amendments of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       Section 402 of the Indian Child Protection and Family 
     Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3201) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) and (F) as 
     subparagraphs (F) and (G), respectively; and
       (ii) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
       ``(E) the Federal Government and certain State governments 
     are responsible for investigating and prosecuting certain 
     felony crimes, including child abuse, in Indian country, 
     pursuant to chapter 53 of title 18, United States Code;''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking 
     ``two'' and inserting ``the'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (iii) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) identify and remove any impediment to the immediate 
     investigation of incidents of child abuse in Indian 
     country.''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) provide for a background investigation for any 
     employee or volunteer who has access to children;''; and
       (B) in paragraph (6), by striking ``Area Office'' and 
     inserting ``Regional Office''.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       Section 403 of the Indian Child Protection and Family 
     Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3202) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (6) through (18) as 
     paragraphs (7) through (19), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (5) the following:
       ``(6) `final conviction' means the final judgment on a 
     verdict or finding of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of 
     nolo contendere, but does not include a final judgment that 
     has been expunged by pardon, reversed, set aside, or 
     otherwise rendered void;'';
       (3) in paragraph (13) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``that agency'' and all that follows through 
     ``Indian tribe'' and inserting ``the Federal, State, or 
     tribal agency'';
       (4) in paragraph (14) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by inserting ``(including a tribal law enforcement agency 
     operating pursuant to a grant, contract, or compact under the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450 et seq.))'' after ``State law enforcement 
     agency'';
       (5) in paragraph (18) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (6) in paragraph (19) (as redesignated by paragraph (1)), 
     by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; 
     and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(20) `telemedicine' means a telecommunications link to an 
     end user through the use of eligible equipment that 
     electronically links health professionals or patients and 
     health professionals at separate sites in order to exchange 
     health care information in audio, video, graphic, or other 
     format for the purpose of providing improved health care 
     diagnosis and treatment.''.

     SEC. 4. REPORTING PROCEDURES.

       Section 404 of the Indian Child Protection and Family 
     Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3203) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``(1) Within'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``(2)(A) Any'' and inserting the following:
       ``(2) Investigation of reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``(B) Upon'' and inserting the following:

       ``(B) Final written report.--On''; and

       (II) by inserting ``including any Federal, State, or tribal 
     final conviction, and provide to the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation a copy of the report'' before the period at the 
     end; and

       (iii) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) Maintenance of final reports.--The Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation shall maintain a record of each written report 
     submitted under this subsection or subsection (b) in a manner 
     in which the report is accessible to--
       ``(i) a local law enforcement agency that requires the 
     information to carry out an official duty; and
       ``(ii) any agency requesting the information under section 
     408.
       ``(D) Report to congress.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this subsection, and annually 
     thereafter, the Director of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, in coordination with the Secretary and the 
     Attorney General, shall submit to the Committees on Indian 
     Affairs and the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committees on 
     Natural Resources and the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives a report on child abuse in Indian country 
     during the preceding year.
       ``(E) Collection of data.--Not less frequently than once 
     each year, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, the 
     Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any 
     Indian tribe, shall--
       ``(i) collect any information concerning child abuse in 
     Indian country (including reports under subsection (b)), 
     including information relating to, during the preceding 
     calendar year--

       ``(I) the number of criminal and civil child abuse 
     allegations and investigations in Indian country;
       ``(II) the number of child abuse prosecutions referred, 
     declined, or deferred in Indian country;
       ``(III) the number of child victims who are the subject of 
     reports of child abuse in Indian country;
       ``(IV) sentencing patterns of individuals convicted of 
     child abuse in Indian country; and
       ``(V) rates of recidivism with respect to child abuse in 
     Indian country; and

       ``(ii) to the maximum extent practicable, reduce the 
     duplication of information collection under clause (i).''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Confidentiality of Children.--No local law 
     enforcement agency or local child protective services agency 
     shall disclose the name of, or information concerning, the 
     child to anyone other than--
       ``(1) a person who, by reason of the participation of the 
     person in the treatment of the child or the investigation or 
     adjudication of the allegation, needs to know the information 
     in the performance of the duties of the individual; or
       ``(2) an officer of any other Federal, State, or tribal 
     agency that requires the information to carry out the duties 
     of the officer under section 406.
       ``(f) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, and annually thereafter, the 
     Secretary shall submit to the Committees on Indian Affairs 
     and the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committees on Natural 
     Resources and the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a 
     report on child abuse in Indian country during the preceding 
     year.
       ``(g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.''.

     SEC. 5. REMOVAL OF IMPEDIMENTS TO REDUCING CHILD ABUSE.

       Section 405 of the Indian Child Protection and Family 
     Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3204) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 405. REMOVAL OF IMPEDIMENTS TO REDUCING CHILD ABUSE.

       ``(a) Study.--The Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Attorney General and the Service, shall conduct a study under 
     which the Secretary shall identify any impediment to the 
     reduction of child abuse in Indian country and on Indian 
     reservations.
       ``(b) Inclusions.--The study under subsection (a) shall 
     include a description of--
       ``(1) any impediment, or recent progress made with respect 
     to removing impediments, to reporting child abuse in Indian 
     country;
       ``(2) any impediment, or recent progress made with respect 
     to removing impediments, to Federal, State, and tribal 
     investigations and prosecutions of allegations of child abuse 
     in Indian country; and
       ``(3) any impediment, or recent progress made with respect 
     to removing impediments, to the treatment of child abuse in 
     Indian country.
       ``(c) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence 
     Prevention Act Amendments of 2007, the Secretary shall submit 
     to the Committees on Indian Affairs and the Judiciary of the 
     Senate, and the Committees on Natural Resources and the 
     Judiciary of the House of Representatives, a report 
     describing--
       ``(1) the findings of the study under this section; and
       ``(2) recommendations for legislative actions, if any, to 
     reduce instances of child abuse in Indian country.''.

     SEC. 6. CONFIDENTIALITY.

       Section 406 of the Indian Child Protection and Family 
     Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3205) is amended to read 
     as follows:

     ``SEC. 406. CONFIDENTIALITY.

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, any Federal, State, or tribal government agency that 
     treats or investigates incidents of child abuse may provide 
     information and records to an officer of any other Federal, 
     State, or tribal government agency that requires the 
     information to carry out the duties of the officer, in 
     accordance with section 552a of title 5, United States Code, 
     section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 264), 
     the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (20 
     U.S.C. 1232g), part C of title XI of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.), and other applicable Federal law.

[[Page 2397]]

       ``(b) Treatment of Indian Tribes.--For purposes of this 
     section, an Indian tribal government shall be considered to 
     be an entity of the Federal Government.''.

     SEC. 7. WAIVER OF PARENTAL CONSENT.

       Section 407 of the Indian Child Protection and Family 
     Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3206) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ``and forensic'' after 
     ``psychological''; and
       (2) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
       ``(c) Protection of Child.--Any examination or interview of 
     a child who may have been the subject of child abuse shall--
       ``(1) be conducted under such circumstances and using such 
     safeguards as are necessary to minimize additional trauma to 
     the child;
       ``(2) avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, subjecting 
     the child to multiple interviewers during the examination and 
     interview processes; and
       ``(3) as time permits, be conducted using advice from, or 
     under the guidance of--
       ``(A) a local multidisciplinary team established under 
     section 411; or
       ``(B) if a local multidisciplinary team is not established 
     under section 411, a multidisciplinary team established under 
     section 410.''.

     SEC. 8. CHARACTER INVESTIGATIONS.

       Section 408 of the Indian Child Protection and Family 
     Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3207) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by inserting ``, including any voluntary positions,'' 
     after ``authorized positions''; and
       (ii) by striking the comma at the end and inserting a 
     semicolon; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by inserting ``(including in a volunteer capacity)'' 
     after ``considered for employment''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, and'' and inserting ``; and'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``guilty to'' and all 
     that follows and inserting the following: ``guilty to, any 
     felony offense under Federal, State, or tribal law, or 2 or 
     more misdemeanor offenses under Federal, State, or tribal 
     law, involving--
       ``(1) a crime of violence;
       ``(2) sexual assault;
       ``(3) child abuse;
       ``(4) molestation;
       ``(5) child sexual exploitation;
       ``(6) sexual contact;
       ``(7) child neglect;
       ``(8) prostitution; or
       ``(9) another offense against a child.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(d) Effect on Child Placement.--An Indian tribe that 
     submits a written statement to the applicable State official 
     documenting that the Indian tribe has conducted a background 
     investigation under this section for the placement of an 
     Indian child in a tribally-licensed or tribally-approved 
     foster care or adoptive home, or for another out-of-home 
     placement, shall be considered to have satisfied the 
     background investigation requirements of any Federal or State 
     law requiring such an investigation.''.

     SEC. 9. INDIAN CHILD ABUSE TREATMENT GRANT PROGRAM.

       Section 409 of the Indian Child Protection and Family 
     Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3208) is amended by 
     striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.''.

     SEC. 10. INDIAN CHILD RESOURCE AND FAMILY SERVICES CENTERS.

       Section 410 of the Indian Child Protection and Family 
     Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 3209) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``area office'' and 
     inserting ``Regional Office'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     all that follows through ``Human Services'' and inserting 
     ``The Secretary, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 
     and the Attorney General'';
       (3) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (4), by inserting ``, State,'' after 
     ``Federal''; and
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``agency office'' and 
     inserting ``Regional Office'';
       (4) in subsection (e)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking the comma at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (B) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) adolescent mental and behavioral health (including 
     suicide prevention and treatment);'';
       (C) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``and sexual assault;''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) criminal prosecution; and
       ``(6) medicine.'';
       (5) in subsection (f)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``The Secretary'' 
     and all that follows through ``Human Services'' and inserting 
     the following:
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Service and the Attorney General'';
       (B) in the second sentence--
       (i) by striking ``Each'' and inserting the following
       ``(2) Membership.--Each''; and
       (ii) by striking ``shall consist of 7 members'' and 
     inserting ``shall be'';
       (C) in the third sentence, by striking ``Members'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Compensation.--Members''; and
       (D) in the fourth sentence, by striking ``The advisory'' 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(4) Duties.--Each advisory'';
       (6) in subsection (g)--
       (A) by striking ``(g)'' and all that follows through 
     ``Indian Child Resource'' and inserting the following:
       ``(g) Application of Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act to Centers.--
       ``(1) In general.--Indian Child Resource'';
       (B) in the first sentence, by striking ``Act'' and 
     inserting ``and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.)'';
       (C) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) Certain regional offices.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     if a Center is located in a Regional Office of the Bureau 
     that serves more than 1 Indian tribe, an application to enter 
     into a grant, contract, or compact under the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et 
     seq.) to operate the Center shall contain a consent form 
     signed by an official of each Indian tribe to be served under 
     the grant, contract, or compact.
       ``(B) Alaska region.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), for 
     Centers located in the Alaska Region, an application to enter 
     into a grant, contract, or compact described in that 
     subparagraph shall contain a consent form signed by an 
     official of each Indian tribe or tribal consortium that is a 
     member of a grant, contract, or compact relating to an Indian 
     child protection and family violence prevention program under 
     the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 
     (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.).''; and
       (D) in the third sentence, by striking ``This section'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(3) Effect of section.--This section''; and
       (7) by striking subsection (h) and inserting the following:
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.''.

     SEC. 11. USE OF TELEMEDICINE.

       The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 412. USE OF TELEMEDICINE.

       ``(a) Definition of Medical or Behavioral Health 
     Professional.--In this section, the term `medical or 
     behavioral health professional' means an employee or 
     volunteer of an organization that provides a service as part 
     of a comprehensive service program that combines--
       ``(1) substance abuse (including abuse of alcohol, drugs, 
     inhalants, and tobacco) prevention and treatment; and
       ``(2) mental health treatment.
       ``(b) Contracts and Agreements.--The Service is authorized 
     to enter into any contract or agreement for the use of 
     telemedicine with a public or private university or facility, 
     including a medical university or facility, or any private 
     medical or behavioral health professional, with experience 
     relating to pediatrics, including the diagnosis and treatment 
     of child abuse, to assist the Service with respect to--
       ``(1) the diagnosis and treatment of child abuse; or
       ``(2) methods of training Service personnel in diagnosing 
     and treating child abuse.
       ``(c) Administration.--In carrying out subsection (b), the 
     Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable--
       ``(1) use existing telemedicine infrastructure; and
       ``(2) give priority to Service units and medical facilities 
     operated pursuant to grants, contracts, or compacts under the 
     Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 
     U.S.C. 450 et seq.) that are located in, or providing service 
     to, remote areas of Indian country.
       ``(d) Information and Consultation.--On receipt of a 
     request, for purposes of this section, the Service may 
     provide to public and private universities and facilities, 
     including medical universities and facilities, and medical or 
     behavioral health professionals described in subsection (b) 
     any information or consultation on the treatment of Indian 
     children who have, or may have, been subject to abuse or 
     neglect.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2012.''.

     SEC. 12. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Offenses Committed Within Indian Country.--Section 
     1153(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     inserting ``felony child abuse, felony child neglect,'' after 
     ``robbery,''.
       (b) Reporting of Child Abuse.--Section 1169 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--

[[Page 2398]]

       (1) in subsection (a)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``or volunteering 
     for'' after ``employed by'';
       (B) in subparagraph (D)--
       (i) by inserting ``or volunteer'' after ``child day care 
     worker''; and
       (ii) by striking ``worker in a group home'' and inserting 
     ``worker or volunteer in a group home'';
       (C) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``or psychological 
     assistant,'' and inserting ``psychological or psychiatric 
     assistant, or person employed in the mental or behavioral 
     health profession;'';
       (D) in subparagraph (F), by striking ``child'' and 
     inserting ``individual'';
       (E) by striking subparagraph (G), and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(G) foster parent; or''; and
       (F) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``law enforcement 
     officer, probation officer'' and inserting ``law enforcement 
     personnel, probation officer, criminal prosecutor''; and
       (2) in subsection (c), by striking paragraphs (3) and (4) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(3) `local child protective services agency' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 403 of the Indian Child 
     Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (25 U.S.C. 
     3202); and
       ``(4) `local law enforcement agency' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 403 of that Act.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BUNNING (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 399. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
include podiatrists as physicians for purposes of covering physicians 
services under the Medicaid program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce an important 
bill that will ensure that Medicaid beneficiaries in all states have 
access to the services of top-quality podiatric physicians. Senator 
Mikulski from Maryland is joining me in the effort again this year, and 
I appreciate her dedication to this issue.
  Having healthy feet and ankles are critical to keeping individuals 
mobile, productive and in good long-term health. This is particularly 
true for individuals with diabetes.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, 
almost 21 million Americans have diabetes, which amounts to about 7 
percent of the total population. Diabetes is the sixth leading cause of 
death in this country. In 2005, 1.5 million Americans were diagnosed 
with diabetes.
  If not managed properly, diabetes can cause several severe health 
problems, including eye disease or blindness, kidney disease and heart 
disease. Too often, diabetes can lead to foot complications, including 
foot ulcers and even amputations. In fact, the CDC estimates that 
82,000 people undergo an amputation of a leg, foot or toe each year 
because of complications with diabetes.
  Proper care of the feet could prevent many of these amputations.
  The bill we are introducing today recognizes the important role 
podiatrists can play identifying and correcting foot problems among 
diabetics. The bill amends Medicaid's definition of ``physicians'' to 
include podiatric physicians. This will ensure that Medicaid 
beneficiaries have access to foot care from those most qualified to 
provide it.
  Under Medicaid, podiatry is considered an optional benefit. However, 
just because it is optional, doesn't mean that podiatric services are 
not needed, or that beneficiaries will not seek out other providers to 
perform these services. Instead, Medicaid beneficiaries will have to 
receive foot care from other providers who may not be as well trained 
as a podiatrist in treating lower extremities.
  Also, it is important to note that podiatrists are considered 
physicians under the Medicare program, which allows seniors and 
disabled individuals to receive appropriate care.
  I urge my colleagues to give careful consideration to this important 
bill. It will help many Medicaid beneficiaries across the country have 
access to podiatrists that they need.
  Finally, I thank the Senator from Maryland for helping me reintroduce 
this legislation today. I hope that by working together we can see this 
important change made.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Bunning to 
introduce this important bill to make sure that Medicaid patients have 
access to care provided by podiatrists.
  This bill ensures that Medicaid patients across the country can get 
services provided by podiatrists. This is a simple, common sense bill. 
This legislation includes podiatric physicians in Medicaid's definition 
of physician. This means that the services of podiatrists will be 
covered by Medicaid, just like they are in Medicare. Podiatrists are 
considered physicians under Medicare. They should be under Medicaid. 
Medicaid covers necessary foot and ankle care services. Medicaid should 
allow podiatrists who are trained specifically in foot and ankle care 
to provide these services and be reimbursed for them.
  The services of podiatrists are considered optional under Medicaid. 
Currently, most State Medicaid programs, including Maryland, recognize 
and reimburse podiatrists for providing foot and ankle care to their 
beneficiaries. However, during times of tight budget States may choose 
to cut back on these optional services. There are now 7 States where 
access to a podiatrist is limited or nearly impossible for someone who 
receives Medicaid. Even though podiatrist services are considered 
optional, Medicaid patients need foot and ankle care. If podiatrists do 
not provide the care, patients will see providers who may not be as 
well trained in the care of the lower extremities as podiatrists. I 
want to make sure the over 750,000 Medicaid patients in Maryland 
continue to have access to the services provided by over 400 
podiatrists in Maryland.
  Podiatrists receive special training on the foot, ankle, and lower 
leg. They play an important role in the recognition of systemic 
diseases like diabetes, and in the recognition and treatment of 
peripheral neuropathy, a frequent cause of diabetic foot wounds that 
can often lead to preventable lower extremity amputations. Nearly 21 
million Americans are now living with diabetes, a 14 percent increase 
from the 18 million in 2003. Another 41 million have pre-diabetes, the 
condition that indicates an increased risk for developing both type 2 
diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Both the CDC and the American 
Diabetes Association recommend that podiatric physicians be part of the 
care term for people with diabetes.
  Ensuring Medicaid patient access to podiatrists will save Medicaid 
funds in the long term. According to the American Podiatric Medical 
Association, 75 percent of Americans will experience some type of foot 
health problem during their lives. Foot disease is the most common 
complication of diabetes leading to hospitalization. About 82,000 
people have diabetes-related leg, foot, or toe amputations each year. 
Foot care programs with regular examinations and patient education 
could prevent up to 85 percent of these amputations. This alone could 
have saved $1.3 billion in savings for Medicare and $386 million in 
savings for Medicaid. Podiatrists are important providers of this care.
  This bill will make sure that Medicaid patients across the country 
have access to care provided by podiatrists. It has the support of the 
American Podiatric Medical Association and gained broad bi-partisan 
support in both the House and Senate last Congress. 29 Senators co-
sponsored S. 440, including nearly half the members of the Finance 
Committee. The House companion bill, HR 699 had 210 co-cosponsors, 
including 68 percent of the committee with primary jurisdiction, Energy 
and Commerce. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself, Mr. Gregg, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 400. A bill to amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
of 1974 and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to ensure that dependent 
students who take a medically necessary leave of absence do not lose 
health insurance coverage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of Senator Gregg 
and Senator Clinton to introduce Michelle's Law. This bill mirrors the 
law the State of New Hampshire passed in June 2006. Michelle Morse was 
a 20-

[[Page 2399]]

year-old resident of Manchester, NH, and a full-time student at 
Plymouth State University when diagnosed with colon cancer in December 
2003. Michelle's doctors wanted her to take a medical leave of absence 
to undergo surgery and chemotherapy, but if she dropped out of school 
she would no longer be covered as a dependent under her mother's plan 
because she would no longer be enrolled as a full-time student. The 
family had the option to obtain COBRA coverage but the Morses estimated 
the increase in monthly premiums would have been too costly. Michelle's 
family decided she would remain in school full time, maintain coverage, 
and maintain her lifestyle as much as she could. So along with her 
homework and books, Michelle would attend class carrying a portable 
chemotherapy pump attached to her hip. She refused to let cancer and 
the aggressive chemotherapy treatment slow her down during the next 2 
years, even while student teaching at Bakersville Elementary School in 
Manchester, and graduated from Plymouth State in May 2005. However, 
Michelle bravely lost her battle with cancer in November 2005.
  Michelle's predicament prompted her mother AnnMarie to take this 
woeful Catch-22 they experienced to the New Hampshire State 
Legislature. New Hampshire responded by passing Michelle's Law in June 
2006, allowing full-time students covered under State-regulated health 
plans a 1-year medical leave of absence while maintaining their 
dependency status. The bill we introduce today affords the same medical 
leave of absence to full-time students covered under health plans 
governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974--ERISA. 
Michelle's Law would allow full-time students and their families to 
focus solely on treating an illness as opposed to concurrently being a 
full-time patient and full-time student. While this bill creates an 
additional mandate for ERISA plans, this provision would apply to less 
than 1 percent of all college-aged students. Yet without this modest 
change, the costs and hardships may be enormous. Also, this bill does 
not trespass on any state's right to govern and regulate its own health 
insurance business.
  I thank AnnMarie Morse for her tireless efforts in making sure 
another student does not get caught between a medical leave of absence 
rock and a hard place of insurance regulations. I also thank Senators 
Gregg and Clinton for joining me today and I hope my colleagues in the 
Senate join us with their support and pass Michelle's Law.

                          ____________________