[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 82-190]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Begich, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer):
  S. 1. A bill to create jobs, restore economic growth, and strengthen 
America's middle class through measures that modernize the nation's 
infrastructure, enhance America's energy independence, expand 
educational opportunities, preserve and improve affordable health care, 
provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need, and for other 
purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 1

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American Recovery and 
     Reinvestment Act of 2009''.

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

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and 
     the President should sign,

[[Page 83]]

     legislation to create jobs, restore economic growth, and 
     strengthen America's middle class through measures that--
       (1) modernize the nation's infrastructure;
       (2) enhance America's energy independence;
       (3) expand educational opportunities;
       (4) preserve and improve affordable health care;
       (5) provide tax relief; and
       (6) protect those in greatest need.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Begich, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. 
        Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 2. A bill to improve the lives of middle class families and 
provide them with greater opportunity to achieve the American dream; 
read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 2

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Middle Class Opportunity Act 
     of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and 
     the President should sign, legislation to improve the lives 
     of middle class families and provide them with greater 
     opportunity to achieve the American dream by--
       (1) providing middle class tax relief while making the tax 
     laws simpler and more reliable;
       (2) promoting investments in the new economy and enacting 
     policies that create good, well-paying jobs in the United 
     States;
       (3) enhancing the incentives and protections to help middle 
     class families adequately meet their needs in retirement;
       (4) improving programs to help families acquire the 
     education and training to be productive participants in the 
     modern economy;
       (5) promoting families by improving the access and 
     affordability of child and elder care;
       (6) restoring fairness, prosperity, and economic security 
     for working families by ensuring workers can exercise their 
     rights to freely choose to form a union without employer 
     interference; and
       (7) removing barriers to fair pay for all workers.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Begich, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 3. A bill to to protect homeowners and consumers by reducing 
foreclosures, ensuring the availability of credit for homeowners, 
businesses, and consumers, and reforming the financial regulatory 
system, and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 3

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Homeowner Protection and 
     Wall Street Accountability Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and 
     the President should sign, legislation--
       (1) to stabilize the housing market and assist homeowners 
     by imposing a temporary moratorium on foreclosures, removing 
     impediments to the modification of distressed mortgages, 
     creating tax and other incentives to help prevent 
     foreclosures and encourage refinancing into affordable and 
     sustainable mortgage solutions, and pursuing other 
     foreclosure-prevention policies through the Troubled Asset 
     Relief Program or other programs;
       (2) to ensure the safety and soundness of the United States 
     financial system for investors by reforming the financial-
     regulatory system, strengthening systemic-risk regulation, 
     enhancing market transparency, and increasing consumer 
     protections in financial regulation to prevent predatory 
     lending practices;
       (3) to ensure credit-card accountability, responsibility 
     and disclosure; and
       (4) to stabilize credit markets for small-business lenders 
     to enhance their ability to make loans to small firms, and 
     stimulate the small-business loan markets by temporarily 
     streamlining and investing in the loan programs of the Small 
     Business Administration.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 4 A bill to guarantee affordable, quality health coverage for all 
Americans, and for other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 4

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Comprehensive Health Reform 
     Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and 
     the President should sign, legislation to guarantee health 
     coverage, improve health care quality and disease prevention, 
     and reduce health care costs for all Americans and the health 
     care system.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Begich, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Bingaman, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Casey, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Akaka, 
        Mr. Schumer, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 5. A bill to improve the economy and security of the United States 
by reducing the dependence of the United States on foreign and 
unsustainable energy sources and the risks of global warming, and for 
other purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 5

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Cleaner, Greener, and 
     Smarter Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

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

[[Page 84]]

  S. 6. A bill to restore and enhance the national security of the 
United States; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 6

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Restoring America's Power 
     Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress should enact, and 
     the President should sign, legislation to restore and enhance 
     the national security of the United States by--
       (1) strengthening America's military capabilities and 
     recognizing the service of United States troops and the 
     commitment of their families by ensuring our Armed Forces 
     receive proper training and equipment prior to deployment, 
     support and medical care when they return home, and adequate 
     dwell time between deployments;
       (2) addressing the threat posed by Al Qaeda and other 
     terrorist groups with a comprehensive military, intelligence, 
     homeland security and diplomatic strategy and refocusing on 
     Afghanistan and Pakistan as the United States transitions in 
     Iraq;
       (3) defeating extremist ideology by increasing the 
     effectiveness of United States intelligence, diplomatic, and 
     foreign assistance capabilities; restoring the United States 
     standing in the world and strengthening alliances; and 
     addressing transnational humanitarian and development 
     challenges; and
       (4) reducing the threat posed by unsecured nuclear 
     materials and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and 
     effectively addressing the security challenges posed by Iran 
     and North Korea.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Begich, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
        Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Akaka, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 7. A bill to expand educational opportunities for all Americans by 
increasing access to high-quality early childhood education and after 
school programs, advancing reform in elementary and secondary 
education, strengthening mathematics and science instruction, and 
ensuring that higher education is more affordable, and for other 
purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 7

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Education Opportunity Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives should pass, and the President should sign 
     into law, legislation to expand educational opportunities for 
     all Americans by--
       (1) increasing access to high-quality early childhood 
     education and expanding child care, after school, and 
     extended learning opportunities;
       (2) improving accountability and assessment measures for 
     elementary and secondary school students, increasing 
     secondary school graduation rates, and supporting elementary 
     and secondary school improvement efforts;
       (3) strengthening teacher preparation, induction, and 
     support in order to recruit and retain qualified and 
     effective teachers in high-need schools;
       (4) enhancing the rigor and relevance of State academic 
     standards and encouraging innovative reform at the middle and 
     high school levels;
       (5) strengthening mathematics and science curricula and 
     instruction; and
       (6) increasing Federal grant aid for students and the 
     families of students, improving the rate of postsecondary 
     degree completion, and providing tax incentives to make 
     higher education more affordable.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Begich, Mr. 
        Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Casey, Mr. 
        Lautenberg, Ms. Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. 
        Clinton, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 8. A bill to return the Government to the people by reviewing 
controversial ``midnight regulations'' issued in the waning days of the 
Bush Administration; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 8

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Returning Government to the 
     American People Act''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Bush Administration should not rush into effect 
     major new controversial regulations in its closing days;
       (2) the incoming Administration, working with the Congress, 
     should review and, if appropriate revise or reject such 
     ``midnight regulations''; and
       (3) if legislation is necessary to ensure the new 
     Administration has this opportunity, that Congress should 
     enact, and the President should sign, such legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Levin, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
        Begich, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Leahy, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Schumer):
  S. 9. A bill to strenghten the United States economy, provide for 
more effective border and employment enforcement, and for other 
purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 9

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Stronger Economy, Stronger 
     Borders Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

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

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, as we begin the 111th Congress, we will 
try, once again, to enact comprehensive immigration reforms that have 
eluded us in the past several years. With an administration that 
understands the critical necessity of meaningful reform and that 
understands the policy failures of the last 8 years, I am hopeful that 
the new Congress can finally enact legislation consistent with our 
history as a nation of immigrants.
  The majority leader has included immigration reform as among the 
legislative priorities for the new Congress. I look forward to working 
with him, Senator Kennedy, Senator McCain, and others interested in 
working toward the goal of immigration reform.
  In 2006 and 2007, Congress attempted to pass practical and effective 
reforms to our immigration system. In 2006, the Senate did its part and 
passed legislation, only to be thwarted by those in the House of 
Representatives who opposed dealing with the issue in a meaningful way. 
In 2007, the House passed legislation only to have it blocked in the 
Senate by Republican Members opposed to effective reform.
  If our immigration policies are to be effective and play a role in 
restoring America's image around the world, we must reject the failed 
policies of the last 8 years. We cannot continue to deny asylum seekers 
because they have been forced at the point of a gun to provide 
assistance to those engaged in terrorist acts. We cannot continue to 
label as terrorist organizations those who have stood by the United 
States in armed conflict. We must not tolerate

[[Page 85]]

the tragic and needless death of a person in our custody for lack of 
basic medical care. We must ensure that children are not needlessly 
separated from their parents and that family unity is respected.
  We must move beyond the current policy that is focused on detaining 
and deporting those undocumented workers who have been abused and 
exploited by American employers but does nothing to change an 
environment that remains ripe for these abuses. We must protect the 
rights and opportunities of American workers and, at the same time, 
ensure that our Nation's farmers and employers have the help they need. 
We should improve the opportunities and make more efficient the 
processes for those who seek to come to America with the goal of 
becoming new Americans, whether to invest in our communities and create 
jobs, to be reunited with loved ones, or to seek freedom and 
opportunity and a better life. We must also live up to the goal of 
family reunification in our immigration policy and join at least 19 
other nations that provide immigration equality to same-sex partners of 
different nationalities. And I believe we would be wise to reconsider 
the effectiveness and cost of a wall along our southern border, which 
has adversely affected the fragile environment and vibrant cross-border 
culture of an entire region. Such a wall stands as a symbol of fear and 
intolerance. This is not what America is about and we can do better.
  Those who oppose a realistic solution to address the estimated 
millions of people currently living and working in the United States 
without proper documentation have offered no alternative solution other 
than harsh penalties and more enforcement. The policies of the last 8 
years, which have served only to appease the most extreme ideologues, 
must be replaced with sensible solutions. I am confident that our 
country and our economy will be far more secure when those who are 
currently living in the shadows of our society are recognized and 
provided the means to become lawful residents, if not a path to 
citizenship.
  As President-elect Obama's administration considers immigration 
issues, I look forward to working closely with them and with the 
Senate's leadership to find the best solutions. President-elect Obama's 
nominees to lead the Department of Homeland Security and the Department 
of Labor understand very well the importance of sensible border 
policies and the importance of workers' rights. The American people 
look to all of us to forge a consensus for immigration reform that 
rejects the extreme ideology that has attended this issue and prevented 
real progress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Levin, Mr. Begich, Mr. 
        Carper, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. 
        Stabenow, Mrs. McCaskill, Ms. Klobuchar, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Schumer, and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 10. A bill to restore fiscal discipline and begin to address the 
long-term fiscal challenges facing the United States, and for other 
purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 10

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal Responsibility Act of 
     2009''.

     SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

       It is the sense of Congress that Congress and the President 
     should restore fiscal discipline and begin to address the 
     long-term fiscal challenges facing the United States through-
       (1) strong pay-as-you-go rules, to help block the approval 
     of measures that would increase the deficit;
       (2) recognition of warnings by both the Government 
     Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office 
     that the Federal budget is on an unsustainable path of rising 
     deficits and debt;
       (3) establishment by Congress and the President of a 
     process--
       (A) to analyze--
       (i) the current and long-term actuarial financial condition 
     of the Federal Government; and
       (ii) the gap between the projected revenues and 
     expenditures of the Federal Government;
       (B) to identify factors that affect the long-term fiscal 
     balance of the Federal Government;
       (C) to analyze potential courses of action to address 
     factors that affect the long-term fiscal balance of the 
     Federal Government;
       (D) to seek a bipartisan agreement, or set of agreements, 
     that will--
       (i) significantly improve the Nation's long-term fiscal 
     imbalances and the gap between projected revenues and 
     expenditures;
       (ii) ensure the economic security of the United States; and
       (iii) expand future prosperity and growth for all 
     Americans;
       (4) a thorough review of all Federal spending and tax 
     expenditures by the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     that identifies items that are outdated, inefficient, poorly 
     run, unnecessary, or otherwise undeserving of scarce Federal 
     resources or that are in need of reform; and
       (5) a review of the current system of taxation of the 
     United States to ensure that burdens are borne fairly and 
     equitably.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Inouye, 
        Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Menendez, Mr. 
        Levin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Carper, Mrs. 
        Feinstein, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 21. A bill to reduce unintended pregnancy, reduce abortions, and 
improve access to women's heath care; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 21

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

             TITLE I--TITLE X OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT

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

 TITLE II--EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE AND CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE

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

      TITLE III--EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EDUCATION AND INFORMATION

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

        TITLE IV--COMPASSIONATE ASSISTANCE FOR RAPE EMERGENCIES

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

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

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

            TITLE VI--ACCURACY OF CONTRACEPTIVE INFORMATION

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

             TITLE VII--UNINTENDED PREGNANCY REDUCTION ACT

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

            TITLE VIII--RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION ABOUT LIFE ACT

Sec. 801. Short title.
Sec. 802. Assistance to reduce teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other 
              sexually transmitted diseases and to support healthy 
              adolescent development.

[[Page 86]]

Sec. 803. Sense of Congress.
Sec. 804. Evaluation of programs.
Sec. 805. Definitions.
Sec. 806. Appropriations.

             TITLE IX--PREVENTION THROUGH AFFORDABLE ACCESS

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Healthy People 2010 sets forth a reduction of 
     unintended pregnancies as an important health objective for 
     the Nation to achieve over the first decade of the new 
     century, a goal first articulated in the 1979 Surgeon 
     General's Report, Healthy People, and reiterated in Healthy 
     People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention 
     Objectives.
       (2) Although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     (referred to in this section as the ``CDC'') included family 
     planning in its published list of the Ten Great Public Health 
     Achievements in the 20th Century, the United States still has 
     one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies among 
     industrialized nations.
       (3) Each year, nearly half of all pregnancies in the United 
     States are unintended, and nearly half of unintended 
     pregnancies end in abortion.
       (4) In 2006, 36,200,000 women, more than half of all women 
     of reproductive age, were in need of contraceptive services 
     and supplies to help prevent unintended pregnancy, and nearly 
     half of those were in need of public support for such care.
       (5) The United States has some of the highest rates of 
     sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among industrialized 
     nations. In 2006, there were approximately 19,000,000 new 
     cases of STIs, almost half of them occurring in young people 
     ages 15 to 24. According to the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention, in addition to the burden on public health, 
     STIs impose a tremendous economic burden with direct medical 
     costs as high as $14,700,000,000 each year in 2006 dollars.
       (6) Contraceptive use can improve overall health by 
     enabling women to plan and space their pregnancies and has 
     contributed to dramatic declines in maternal and infant 
     mortality. Widespread use of contraceptives has been the 
     driving force in reducing unintended pregnancies and sexually 
     transmitted infections (STIs), and reducing the need for 
     abortion in this nation. Contraceptive use also saves public 
     health dollars. For every dollar spent to provide services in 
     publicly funded family planning clinics, $4.02 in Medicaid 
     expenses are saved because unintended births are averted.
       (7) Reducing unintended pregnancy improves maternal health 
     and is an important strategy in efforts to reduce maternal 
     mortality. Women experiencing unintended pregnancy are at 
     greater risk for physical abuse.
       (8) A child born from an unintended pregnancy is at greater 
     risk than a child born from an intended pregnancy of low 
     birth weight, dying in the first year of life, being abused, 
     and not receiving sufficient resources for healthy 
     development.
       (9) The ability to control fertility allows couples to 
     achieve economic stability by facilitating greater 
     educational achievement and participation in the workforce.
       (10) Contraceptives are effective in preventing unintended 
     pregnancy when used consistently and correctly. Without 
     contraception, a sexually active woman has an 85 percent 
     chance of becoming pregnant within a year.
       (11) Approximately 50 percent of unintended pregnancies 
     occur among women who do not use contraception.
       (12) Many poor and low-income women cannot afford to 
     purchase contraceptive services and supplies on their own. 
     The number of women needing subsidized services has increased 
     by more than 1,000,000 (7 percent) since 2000. A poor woman 
     in the United States is now nearly 4 times as likely as a 
     more affluent woman to have an unplanned pregnancy. Between 
     1994 and 2001, unintended pregnancy among low-income women 
     increased by 29 percent, while unintended pregnancy decreased 
     by 20 percent among women with higher incomes.
       (13) Public health programs, such as the Medicaid program 
     and family planning programs under title X of the Public 
     Health Service Act, provide high-quality family planning 
     services and other preventive health care to underinsured or 
     uninsured individuals who may otherwise lack access to health 
     care.
       (14) Medicaid has become an essential source of support for 
     the provision of subsidized family planning services and 
     supplies. It is the single largest source of public funds 
     supporting these services. In 2001, the program provided 6 in 
     10 of all public dollars spent on family planning services. 
     In 2006, 12 percent of women of reproductive age (7,300,000 
     women ages 15 to 44) looked to Medicaid for their care and 37 
     percent of poor women of reproductive age rely upon Medicaid.
       (15) Approximately 1,400,000 unintended pregnancies and 
     600,000 abortions are averted each year because of services 
     provided in publicly funded clinics. In 2006, Title X (of the 
     Public Health Service Act) service providers performed more 
     than 2,400,000 Pap tests, 2,400,000 breast exams, and 
     5,800,000 tests for sexually transmitted diseases, including 
     652,426 HIV tests and 2,300,000 Chlamydia tests. One in 4 
     women who obtain reproductive health services from a medical 
     provider do so at a publicly funded clinic.
       (16) The stagnant funding for public family planning 
     programs in combination with the increasing demand for 
     subsidized services, the rising costs of contraceptive 
     services and supplies, and the high cost of improved 
     screening and treatment for cervical cancer and sexually 
     transmitted infections has diminished the ability of clinics 
     receiving funds under title X of the Public Health Services 
     Act to adequately serve all those in need. At present, 
     clinics are able to reach just 41 percent of the women 
     needing subsidized services. Had Title X funding kept up with 
     inflation since fiscal year 1980, it would now be funded at 
     $759,000,000, instead of its fiscal year 2007 funding level 
     of $283,000,000. Taking inflation into account, funding for 
     Title X in constant dollars is 63 percent lower today than it 
     was in fiscal year 1980.
       (17) While the Medicaid program remains the largest source 
     of subsidized family planning services, States are facing 
     significant budgetary pressures to cut their Medicaid 
     programs, putting many women at risk of losing coverage for 
     family planning services.
       (18) In addition, eligibility under the Medicaid program in 
     many States is severely restricted, which leaves family 
     planning services financially out of reach for many poor 
     women. Many States have demonstrated tremendous success with 
     Medicaid family planning waivers that allow States to expand 
     access to Medicaid family planning services. However, the 
     administrative burden of applying for a waiver poses a 
     significant barrier to States that would like to expand their 
     coverage of family planning programs through Medicaid.
       (19) As of December of 2008, 27 States offered expanded 
     family planning benefits as a result of Medicaid family 
     planning waivers. The cost-effectiveness of these waivers was 
     affirmed by a recent evaluation funded by the Centers for 
     Medicare & Medicaid Services. This evaluation of six waivers 
     found that all family planning programs under such waivers 
     resulted in significant savings to both the Federal and State 
     governments. Moreover, the researchers found measurable 
     reductions in unintended pregnancy.
       (20) Although employer-sponsored health plans have improved 
     coverage of contraceptive services and supplies, largely in 
     response to State contraceptive coverage laws, there is still 
     significant room for improvement. The ongoing lack of 
     coverage in health insurance plans, particularly in self-
     insured and individual plans, continues to place effective 
     forms of contraception beyond the financial reach of many 
     women.
       (21) Including contraceptive coverage in private health 
     care plans saves employers money. Not covering contraceptives 
     in employee health plans costs employers 15 to 17 percent 
     more than providing such coverage.
       (22) Approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration, 
     emergency contraception is a safe and effective way to 
     prevent unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex. Research 
     confirms that easier access to emergency contraceptives does 
     not increase sexual risk-taking or sexually transmitted 
     diseases.
       (23) The available evidence shows that many women do not 
     know about emergency contraception, do not know where to get 
     it, or are unable to access it. Overcoming these obstacles 
     could help ensure that more women use emergency contraception 
     consistently and correctly.
       (24) A November 2006 study of declining pregnancy rates 
     among teens concluded that the reduction in teen pregnancy 
     between 1995 and 2002 is primarily the result of increased 
     use of contraceptives. As such, it is critically important 
     that teens receive accurate, unbiased information about 
     contraception.
       (25) The American Medical Association, the American Nurses 
     Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American 
     College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American 
     Public Health Association, and the Society for Adolescent 
     Medicine, support responsible sex education that includes 
     information about both abstinence and contraception.
       (26) Teens who receive comprehensive sex education that 
     includes discussion of contraception as well as abstinence 
     are more likely than those who receive abstinence-only 
     messages to delay sex, to have fewer partners, and to use 
     contraceptives when they do become sexually active.
       (27) Government-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage 
     programs are precluded from discussing contraception except 
     to talk about failure rates. An October 2006 report by the 
     Government Accountability Office found that the Department of 
     Health and Human Services does not review the materials of 
     recipients of grants administered by such department for 
     scientific accuracy and requires grantees to review their own 
     materials for scientific accuracy. The GAO also reported on 
     the Department's total lack of appropriate and customary 
     measurements to determine if funded programs are effective. 
     In addition, a separate letter from the Government 
     Accountability Office found that

[[Page 87]]

     the Department of Health and Human Services is in violation 
     of Federal law by failing to enforce a requirement under the 
     Public Health Service Act that Federally-funded grantees 
     working to address the prevention of sexually transmitted 
     diseases, including abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, 
     must provide medically accurate information about the 
     effectiveness of condoms.
       (28) Recent scientific reports by the Institute of 
     Medicine, the American Medical Association, and the Office on 
     National AIDS Policy stress the need for sex education that 
     includes messages about abstinence and provides young people 
     with information about contraception for the prevention of 
     teen pregnancy, HIV/AIDS, and other sexually transmitted 
     diseases.
       (29) A 2006 statement from the American Public Health 
     Association (``APHA'') ``recognizes the importance of 
     abstinence education, but only as part of a comprehensive 
     sexuality education program ... APHA calls for repealing 
     current federal funding for abstinence-only programs and 
     replacing it with funding for a new Federal program to 
     promote comprehensive sexuality education, combining 
     information about abstinence with age-appropriate sexuality 
     education.''
       (30) Comprehensive sex education programs respect the 
     diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community 
     and will complement and augment the sex education children 
     receive from their families.
       (31) Over 60 percent of the 56,300 annual new cases of HIV 
     infections in the United States occur in youth ages 13 
     through 24. African American and Latino youth have been 
     disproportionately affected by the HIV/AIDS epidemic. In 
     2005, Blacks and Latinos accounted for 84 percent of all new 
     HIV infections among 13 to 19 year olds and 76 percent of HIV 
     infections among 20 to 24 year olds in the United States even 
     though, together, they represent only about 32 percent of 
     people in these ages. Teens in the United States contract an 
     estimated 9,000,000 sexually transmitted infections each 
     year. By age 24, at least 1 in 4 sexually active people 
     between the ages of 15 and 24 will have contracted a sexually 
     transmitted infection.
       (32) Approximately 50 young people a day, an average of two 
     young people every hour of every day, are infected with HIV 
     in the United States.
       (33) In 1990, Congress passed the Medicaid Anti-
     Discriminatory Drug Price and Patient Benefit Restoration Act 
     to ensure that Medicaid receives the lowest drug prices in 
     the marketplace. Congress intentionally protected the 
     practice of pharmaceutical companies offering charitable 
     organizations and clinics nominally-priced drugs. As an 
     unintended consequence of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 
     birth control prices have skyrocketed for millions of women 
     who depend on safety net providers for their birth control. 
     Birth control that previously cost only $5 to $10 per month 
     is now prohibitively expensive, running as much as $40 or $50 
     a month. Many family planning health centers have absorbed 
     much of this price increase, further straining already 
     limited resources. As the economic crisis worsens, women and 
     their families are increasingly turning to health care safety 
     net providers, such as family planning health centers, for a 
     reliable source of care.

             TITLE I--TITLE X OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 102. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

 TITLE II--EQUITY IN PRESCRIPTION INSURANCE AND CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) Requirements for Coverage.--A group health plan, and 
     a health insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage 
     in connection with a group health plan, may not--
       ``(1) exclude or restrict benefits for prescription 
     contraceptive drugs or devices approved by the Food and Drug 
     Administration, or generic equivalents approved as 
     substitutable by the Food and Drug Administration, if such 
     plan or coverage provides benefits for other outpatient 
     prescription drugs or devices; or
       ``(2) exclude or restrict benefits for outpatient 
     contraceptive services if such plan or coverage provides 
     benefits for other outpatient services provided by a health 
     care professional (referred to in this section as `outpatient 
     health care services').
       ``(b) Prohibitions.--A group health plan, and a health 
     insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan, may not--
       ``(1) deny to an individual eligibility, or continued 
     eligibility, to enroll or to renew coverage under the terms 
     of the plan because of the individual's or enrollee's use or 
     potential use of items or services that are covered in 
     accordance with the requirements of this section;
       ``(2) provide monetary payments or rebates to a covered 
     individual to encourage such individual to accept less than 
     the minimum protections available under this section;
       ``(3) penalize or otherwise reduce or limit the 
     reimbursement of a health care professional because such 
     professional prescribed contraceptive drugs or devices, or 
     provided contraceptive services, described in subsection (a), 
     in accordance with this section; or
       ``(4) provide incentives (monetary or otherwise) to a 
     health care professional to induce such professional to 
     withhold from a covered individual contraceptive drugs or 
     devices, or contraceptive services, described in subsection 
     (a).
       ``(c) Rules of Construction.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       ``(A) as preventing a group health plan and a health 
     insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan from imposing 
     deductibles, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing or 
     limitations in relation to--
       ``(i) benefits for contraceptive drugs under the plan or 
     coverage, except that such a deductible, coinsurance, or 
     other cost-sharing or limitation for any such drug shall be 
     consistent with those imposed for other outpatient 
     prescription drugs otherwise covered under the plan or 
     coverage;
       ``(ii) benefits for contraceptive devices under the plan or 
     coverage, except that such a deductible, coinsurance, or 
     other cost-sharing or limitation for any such device shall be 
     consistent with those imposed for other outpatient 
     prescription devices otherwise covered under the plan or 
     coverage; and
       ``(iii) benefits for outpatient contraceptive services 
     under the plan or coverage, except that such a deductible, 
     coinsurance, or other cost-sharing or limitation for any such 
     service shall be consistent with those imposed for other 
     outpatient health care services otherwise covered under the 
     plan or coverage;
       ``(B) as requiring a group health plan and a health 
     insurance issuer providing health insurance coverage in 
     connection with a group health plan to cover experimental or 
     investigational contraceptive drugs or devices, or 
     experimental or investigational contraceptive services, 
     described in subsection (a), except to the extent that the 
     plan or issuer provides coverage for other experimental or 
     investigational outpatient prescription drugs or devices, or 
     experimental or investigational outpatient health care 
     services; or
       ``(C) as modifying, diminishing, or limiting the rights or 
     protections of an individual under any other Federal law.
       ``(2) Limitations.--As used in paragraph (1), the term 
     `limitation' includes--
       ``(A) in the case of a contraceptive drug or device, 
     restricting the type of health care professionals that may 
     prescribe such drugs or devices, utilization review 
     provisions, and limits on the volume of prescription drugs or 
     devices that may be obtained on the basis of a single 
     consultation with a professional; or
       ``(B) in the case of an outpatient contraceptive service, 
     restricting the type of health care professionals that may 
     provide such services, utilization review provisions, 
     requirements relating to second opinions prior to the 
     coverage of such services, and requirements relating to 
     preauthorizations prior to the coverage of such services.
       ``(d) Notice Under Group Health Plan.--The imposition of 
     the requirements of this section shall be treated as a 
     material modification in the terms of the plan described in 
     section 102(a)(1), for purposes of assuring notice of such 
     requirements under the plan, except that the summary 
     description required to be provided under the last sentence 
     of section 104(b)(1) with respect to such modification shall 
     be provided by not later than 60 days after the first day of 
     the first plan year in which such requirements apply.
       ``(e) Preemption.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to preempt any provision of State law to the extent 
     that such State law establishes, implements, or continues in 
     effect any standard or requirement that provides coverage or 
     protections for participants or beneficiaries that are 
     greater than the coverage or protections provided under this 
     section.
       ``(f) Definition.--In this section, the term `outpatient 
     contraceptive services' means consultations, examinations, 
     procedures, and medical services, provided on an outpatient 
     basis and related to the use of contraceptive methods 
     (including natural family planning) to prevent an unintended 
     pregnancy.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1 
     of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1001) is amended by inserting after the item relating 
     to section 713 the following:

``Sec. 715. Standards relating to benefits for contraceptives.''.

[[Page 88]]

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to plan years beginning on or after 
     January 1, 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      TITLE III--EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EDUCATION AND INFORMATION

     SEC. 301. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 302. EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION EDUCATION AND INFORMATION 
                   PROGRAMS.

       (a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       (1) Emergency contraception.--The term ``emergency 
     contraception'' means a drug or device (as the terms are 
     defined in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321)) or a drug regimen that is--
       (A) used after sexual relations;
       (B) prevents pregnancy, by preventing ovulation, 
     fertilization of an egg, or implantation of an egg in a 
     uterus; and
       (C) approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
       (2) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means an individual who is licensed or certified 
     under State law to provide health care services and who is 
     operating within the scope of such license.
       (3) Institution of higher education.--The term 
     ``institution of higher education'' has the same meaning 
     given such term in section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a)).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.
       (b) Emergency Contraception Public Education Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the Director 
     of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall 
     develop and disseminate to the public information on 
     emergency contraception.
       (2) Dissemination.--The Secretary may disseminate 
     information under paragraph (1) directly or through 
     arrangements with nonprofit organizations, consumer groups, 
     institutions of higher education, Federal, State, or local 
     agencies, clinics, and the media.
       (3) Information.--The information disseminated under 
     paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum, a description of 
     emergency contraception and an explanation of the use, 
     safety, efficacy, and availability of such contraception.
       (c) Emergency Contraception Information Program for Health 
     Care Providers.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Health Resources and Services 
     Administration and in consultation with major medical and 
     public health organizations, shall develop and disseminate to 
     health care providers information on emergency contraception.
       (2) Information.--The information disseminated under 
     paragraph (1) shall include, at a minimum--
       (A) information describing the use, safety, efficacy, and 
     availability of emergency contraception;
       (B) a recommendation regarding the use of such 
     contraception in appropriate cases; and
       (C) information explaining how to obtain copies of the 
     information developed under subsection (b) for distribution 
     to the patients of the providers.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to

[[Page 89]]

     carry out this section such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of the fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

        TITLE IV--COMPASSIONATE ASSISTANCE FOR RAPE EMERGENCIES

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 501. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 502. TEENAGE PREGNANCY PREVENTION.

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

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

       ``(a) Authority.--The Secretary may award on a competitive 
     basis grants to public and private entities to establish or 
     expand teenage pregnancy prevention programs.
       ``(b) Grant Recipients.--Grant recipients under this 
     section may include State and local not-for-profit coalitions 
     working to prevent teenage pregnancy, State, local, and 
     tribal agencies, schools, entities that provide after-school 
     programs, and community and faith-based groups.
       ``(c) Priority.--In selecting grant recipients under this 
     section, the Secretary shall give--
       ``(1) highest priority to applicants seeking assistance for 
     programs targeting communities or populations in which--
       ``(A) teenage pregnancy or birth rates are higher than the 
     corresponding State average; or
       ``(B) teenage pregnancy or birth rates are increasing; and
       ``(2) priority to applicants seeking assistance for 
     programs that--
       ``(A) will benefit underserved or at-risk populations such 
     as young males or immigrant youths; or
       ``(B) will take advantage of other available resources and 
     be coordinated with other programs that serve youth, such as 
     workforce development and after school programs.
       ``(d) Use of Funds.--Funds received by an entity as a grant 
     under this section shall be used for programs that--
       ``(1) replicate or substantially incorporate the elements 
     of one or more teenage pregnancy prevention programs that 
     have been proven (on the basis of rigorous scientific 
     research) to delay sexual intercourse or sexual activity, 
     increase condom or contraceptive use without increasing 
     sexual activity, or reduce teenage pregnancy; and
       ``(2) incorporate one or more of the following strategies 
     for preventing teenage pregnancy: encouraging teenagers to 
     delay sexual activity; sex and HIV education; interventions 
     for sexually active teenagers; preventive health services; 
     youth development programs; service learning programs; and 
     outreach or media programs.
       ``(e) Complete Information.--Programs receiving funds under 
     this section that choose to provide information on HIV/AIDS 
     or contraception or both must provide information that is 
     complete and medically accurate.
       ``(f) Relation to Abstinence-Only Programs.--Funds under 
     this section are not intended for use by abstinence-only 
     education programs. Abstinence-only education programs that 
     receive Federal funds through the Maternal and Child Health 
     Block Grant, the Administration for Children and Families, 
     the Adolescent Family Life Program, and any other program 
     that uses the definition of `abstinence education' found in 
     section 510(b) of the Social Security Act are ineligible for 
     funding.
       ``(g) Applications.--Each entity seeking a grant under this 
     section shall submit an application to the Secretary at such 
     time and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
       ``(h) Matching Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may not award a grant to 
     an applicant for a program under this section unless the 
     applicant demonstrates that it will pay, from funds derived 
     from non-Federal sources, at least 25 percent of the cost of 
     the program.
       ``(2) Applicant's share.--The applicant's share of the cost 
     of a program shall be provided in cash or in kind.
       ``(i) Supplementation of Funds.--An entity that receives 
     funds as a grant under this section shall use the funds to 
     supplement and not supplant funds that would otherwise be 
     available to the entity for teenage pregnancy prevention.
       ``(j) Evaluations.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) conduct or provide for a rigorous evaluation of 10 
     percent of programs for which a grant is awarded under this 
     section;
       ``(B) collect basic data on each program for which a grant 
     is awarded under this section; and
       ``(C) upon completion of the evaluations referred to in 
     subparagraph (A), submit to the Congress a report that 
     includes a detailed statement on the effectiveness of grants 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Cooperation by grantees.--Each grant recipient under 
     this section shall provide such information and cooperation 
     as may be required for an evaluation under paragraph (1).
       ``(k) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `rigorous scientific research' means based on a program 
     evaluation that:
       ``(1) Measured impact on sexual or contraceptive behavior, 
     pregnancy or childbearing.
       ``(2) Employed an experimental or quasi-experimental design 
     with well-constructed and appropriate comparison groups.
       ``(3) Had a sample size large enough (at least 100 in the 
     combined treatment and control group) and a follow-up 
     interval long enough (at least six months) to draw valid 
     conclusions about impact.
       ``(l) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal year 2010 and each 
     subsequent fiscal year.''.

     SEC. 503. RESEARCH.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention, shall make grants to public 
     or nonprofit private entities to conduct, support, and 
     coordinate research on the prevention of teen pregnancy in 
     eligible communities, including research on the factors 
     contributing to the disproportionate rates of teen pregnancy 
     in such communities.
       (b) Research.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall support research 
     that--
       (1) investigates and determines the incidence and 
     prevalence of teen pregnancy in communities described in such 
     subsection;
       (2) examines--
       (A) the extent of the impact of teen pregnancy on--
       (i) the health and well-being of teenagers in the 
     communities; and
       (ii) the scholastic achievement of such teenagers;
       (B) the variance in the rates of teen pregnancy by--
       (i) location (such as inner cities, inner suburbs, and 
     outer suburbs);
       (ii) population subgroup (such as Hispanic, Asian-Pacific 
     Islander, African-American, Native American); and

[[Page 90]]

       (iii) level of acculturation;
       (C) the importance of the physical and social environment 
     as a factor in placing communities at risk of increased rates 
     of teen pregnancy; and
       (D) the importance of aspirations as a factor affecting 
     young women's risk of teen pregnancy; and
       (3) is used to develop--
       (A) measures to address race, ethnicity, socioeconomic 
     status, environment, and educational attainment and the 
     relationship to the incidence and prevalence of teen 
     pregnancy; and
       (B) efforts to link the measures to relevant databases, 
     including health databases.
       (c) Priority.--In making grants under subsection (a), the 
     Secretary of Health and Human Services shall give priority to 
     research that incorporates--
       (1) interdisciplinary approaches; or
       (2) a strong emphasis on community-based participatory 
     research.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary for each of the 
     fiscal years 2010 through 2014.

     SEC. 504. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.

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

            TITLE VI--ACCURACY OF CONTRACEPTIVE INFORMATION

     SEC. 601. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 602. ACCURACY OF CONTRACEPTIVE INFORMATION.

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

             TITLE VII--UNINTENDED PREGNANCY REDUCTION ACT

     SEC. 701. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

     SEC. 703. EXPANSION OF FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES.

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

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

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


         ``presumptive eligibility for family planning services

       ``Sec. 1920C.  (a) State Option.--A State plan approved 
     under section 1902 may provide for making medical assistance 
     available to an individual described in section 1902(dd) 
     (relating to individuals who meet certain income eligibility 
     standards) during a presumptive eligibility period. In the 
     case of an individual described in section 1902(dd), such 
     medical assistance shall be limited to family planning 
     services and supplies described in 1905(a)(4)(C) including 
     medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided 
     pursuant to a family planning service in a family planning 
     setting.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
       ``(1) Presumptive eligibility period.--The term 
     `presumptive eligibility period' means, with respect to an 
     individual described in subsection (a), the period that--
       ``(A) begins with the date on which a qualified entity 
     determines, on the basis of preliminary information, that the 
     individual is described in section 1902(dd); and
       ``(B) ends with (and includes) the earlier of--
       ``(i) the day on which a determination is made with respect 
     to the eligibility of such individual for services under the 
     State plan; or
       ``(ii) in the case of such an individual who does not file 
     an application by the last day of the month following the 
     month during which the entity makes the determination 
     referred to in subparagraph (A), such last day.
       ``(2) Qualified entity.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the term 
     `qualified entity' means any entity that--
       ``(i) is eligible for payments under a State plan approved 
     under this title; and
       ``(ii) is determined by the State agency to be capable of 
     making determinations of the type described in paragraph 
     (1)(A).
       ``(B) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this paragraph 
     shall be construed as preventing a State from limiting the 
     classes of entities that may become qualified entities.
       ``(c) Administration.--
       ``(1) In general.--The State agency shall provide qualified 
     entities with--
       ``(A) such forms as are necessary for an application to be 
     made by an individual described in subsection (a) for medical 
     assistance under the State plan; and
       ``(B) information on how to assist such individuals in 
     completing and filing such forms.
       ``(2) Notification requirements.--A qualified entity that 
     determines under subsection (b)(1)(A) that an individual 
     described in subsection (a) is presumptively eligible for 
     medical assistance under a State plan shall--
       ``(A) notify the State agency of the determination within 5 
     working days after the date on which determination is made; 
     and
       ``(B) inform such individual at the time the determination 
     is made that an application for medical assistance is 
     required to be made by not later than the last day of the 
     month following the month during which the determination is 
     made.
       ``(3) Application for medical assistance.--In the case of 
     an individual described in subsection (a) who is determined 
     by a qualified entity to be presumptively eligible for 
     medical assistance under a State plan, the individual shall 
     apply for medical assistance by not later than the last day 
     of the month following the month during which the 
     determination is made.
       ``(d) Payment.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     title, medical assistance that--
       ``(1) is furnished to an individual described in subsection 
     (a)--

[[Page 91]]

       ``(A) during a presumptive eligibility period;
       ``(B) by a entity that is eligible for payments under the 
     State plan; and
       ``(2) is included in the care and services covered by the 
     State plan, shall be treated as medical assistance provided 
     by such plan for purposes of clause (4) of the first sentence 
     of section 1905(b).''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 1902(a)(47) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396a(a)(47)) is amended by inserting before the 
     semicolon at the end the following: ``and provide for making 
     medical assistance available to individuals described in 
     subsection (a) of section 1920C during a presumptive 
     eligibility period in accordance with such section.''.
       (B) Section 1903(u)(1)(D)(v) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396b(u)(1)(D)(v)) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``or for'' and inserting ``, for''; and
       (ii) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or 
     for medical assistance provided to an individual described in 
     subsection (a) of section 1920C during a presumptive 
     eligibility period under such section''.

     SEC. 704. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

            TITLE VIII--RESPONSIBLE EDUCATION ABOUT LIFE ACT

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

     SEC. 803. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

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

     SEC. 804. EVALUATION OF PROGRAMS.

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

     SEC. 805. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 806. APPROPRIATIONS.

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

             TITLE IX--PREVENTION THROUGH AFFORDABLE ACCESS

     SEC. 901. SHORT TITLE.

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

[[Page 92]]



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

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

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

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Casey):
  S. 32. A bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 
hold at least 1 public hearing before issuance of a permit affecting 
public or private land use in a locality; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to speak on 
legislation I am introducing that will require the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to hold at least one public hearing before 
issuance of a permit affecting public or private land use in a 
locality. I introduced legislation on this issue at the end of the 
110th Congress, and fully expect it to remain relevant as we move 
forward with upgrades to our energy infrastructure, possibly as part of 
an economic stimulus package. The legislation has been updated; namely, 
it now allows for a second hearing when officially requested by a 
county or local government to address issues not addressed at the 
original hearing.
  Increasing demand for electricity throughout the Northeast is putting 
a strain on energy infrastructure in my State, necessitating new 
transmission lines and natural gas pipelines and the expansion of 
existing ones. In southwestern and northeast Pennsylvania transmission 
line expansions are planned over hundreds of miles of private property, 
while in the southeast natural gas pipeline expansions are underway.
  There is no doubt these projects can be invasive, and rarely do they 
fail to be controversial. I make a point of touching all of 
Pennsylvania's 67 counties each year. In traveling Pennsylvania this 
Fall I heard a lot of complaints, which didn't come as a surprise. I 
heard frequently from constituents who oppose these infrastructure 
projects, and who felt their concerns were being ignored by the energy 
companies and by FERC.
  I realize there will always be some opposition to large 
infrastructure projects. What is unacceptable, however, is for the 
people of my State to feel that their voices were not heard, that their 
issues were ignored. It may be the case that these projects are 
necessary. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is the authority, 
and in exercising its authority it must be sensitive to local concerns.
  To address this I propose simply that FERC hold a hearing in these 
affected communities. In many cases this is already done, but my 
legislation makes it mandatory. State Public Utility Commissions, who 
have a great say in these matters, are beyond Congress' reach. But 
where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is involved we can take 
steps to ensure that our constituents' concerns receive due 
consideration. Holding a hearing may not lead to all sides agreeing on 
the proper route forward, but at the very least my Pennsylvania 
constituents will come away with the satisfaction of having publicly 
aired their grievances.
  To ensure that constituent concerns are given all due consideration, 
my legislation allows for affected parties to petition for a second 
hearing, provided certain conditions are met. In order for a second 
hearing to occur, a county government, or a municipal government within 
the affected county, must petition the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission for a second hearing. A second hearing will only occur to 
address an issue that was not addressed at the initial hearing, and the 
hearing shall occur between 30 and 60 days after approval by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
  The safeguards included in this legislation are critical to 
protecting individual property rights. As the Nation moves forward in 
making needed updates to its infrastructure, defending citizens' 
constitutional right to redress their government with their concerns 
should be paramount for this Congress. I will continue to fight to 
allow my constituents to be heard when Federal projects will affect 
their rights as homeowners and landowners.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Ensign, Mr. 
        Cornyn, and Mr. Martinez):
  S. 35. A bill to provide a permanent deduction for State and local 
general sales taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to 
permanently correct an injustice in the tax code that has harmed 
citizens in many States of this great Nation.
  State and local governments have various alternatives for raising 
revenue. Some levy income taxes, some use sales taxes, and others use a 
combination of the two. The citizens who pay State and local income 
taxes have been able to offset some of their federal income taxes by 
receiving a deduction for those State and local income taxes. Before 
1986, taxpayers also had the ability to deduct their sales taxes.
  The philosophy behind these deductions is simple: people should not 
have to pay taxes on their taxes. The money that people must give to 
one level of government should not also be taxed by another level of 
government.
  Unfortunately, citizens of some States were treated differently after 
1986 when the deduction for State and local sales taxes was eliminated. 
This discriminated against those living in States, such as my home 
State of Texas, with no income taxes. It is important to remember the 
lack of an income tax does not mean citizens in these States do not pay 
State taxes; revenues are simply collected differently.
  It is unfair to give citizens from some States a deduction for the 
revenue they provide their State and local governments, while not doing 
the same for citizens from other States. Federal tax law should not 
treat people differently on the basis of State residence and differing 
tax collection methods, and it should not provide an incentive for 
States to establish income taxes over sales taxes.
  This discrepancy has a significant impact on Texas. According to the 
Texas Comptroller, extending the deduction would save Texans a 
projected $1.2 billion a year, or an average of $520 per filer claiming 
the deduction. The Texas Comptroller also estimates continuing the 
deduction is associated with 15,700 to 25,700 Texas jobs and $1.1 
billion to $1.4 billion in gross State product.
  Recognizing the inequity in the tax code, Congress reinstated the 
sales tax deduction in 2004 and authorized it for 2 years. In 2006 
Congress extended the sales tax deduction for an additional 2 years. 
Last year, Congress extended the deduction for 2 more years. 
Unfortunately, the deduction is only in effect through 2009, and we 
must act to prevent the inequity from returning.
  The legislation I am offering today will fix this problem for good by 
making the State and local sales tax deduction permanent. This will 
permanently end the discrimination suffered by my fellow Texans and 
citizens of other States who do not have the option of an income tax 
deduction.
  This legislation is about reestablishing equity to the tax code and 
defending the important principle of eliminating taxes on taxes. I hope 
my fellow Senators will support this effort and pass this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 35

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

[[Page 93]]



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

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (I) of section 164(b)(5) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 201 
     of the Tax Extenders and Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, is 
     amended by striking ``, and before January 1, 2010''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 36. A bill to repeat the perimeter rule for Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Ensign in introducing the Abolishing Aviation Barriers Act of 2009. 
This bill would remove the arbitrary restrictions that prevent 
Americans from having an array of options for non-stop air travel 
between airports in Western states and LaGuardia International Airport 
and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
  LaGuardia restricts the departure or arrival of non-stop flights to 
or from airports that are farther then 1,500 miles from LaGuardia. 
Washington National has a similar restriction for non-stop flights to 
or from airports 1,250 miles from Washington National. These 
restrictions are commonly referred to as the ``perimeter rule.'' This 
bill would abolish these archaic limitations that reduce consumers' 
options for convenient flights and competitive fares.
  The original purpose of the perimeter rule was to promote LaGuardia 
and Washington National as airports for business travelers flying to 
and from East Coast and Midwest cities and to promote traffic to other 
airports by diverting long haul flights to Newark and Kennedy airports 
in the New York area and Dulles airport in the Washington area. 
However, over the years, Congress has granted numerous exceptions to 
the perimeter rule because the air traveling public is eager for 
options. Today, exceptions are made for nonstop flights between 
LaGuardia and Denver and between Washington National and Denver, Las 
Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Seattle. Rather then 
continuing to take a piecemeal approach to promoting consumer choice, I 
urge Congress to take this opportunity once and for all to do away with 
this outdated rule.
  I continue to believe that Americans should have access to air travel 
at the lowest possible cost and with the most convenience for their 
schedule. Therefore, I have always advocated for the removal of any 
artificial barrier that prevents free market competition. In 2004, I 
co-sponsored legislation to repeal the Wright Amendment which 
prohibited flights from Dallas Love Field airport to 43 states. This 
year, I am proud to once again join with my colleagues to eliminate 
another unnecessary restraint through the Abolishing Aviation Barriers 
Act of 2009.
  A 1999 study by the Transportation Research Board, the most recent 
available, stated that perimeter rules ``no longer serve their original 
purpose and have produced too many adverse side effects, including 
barriers to competition . . . The rules arbitrarily prevent some 
airlines from extending their networks to these airports; they 
discourage competition among the airports in the region and among the 
airlines that use these airports; and they are subject to chronic 
attempts by special interest groups to obtain exemptions.'' That same 
year, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, stated that the 
``practical effect'' of the perimeter rule ``has been to limit entry'' 
of other carriers and found that airfares at LaGuardia and Washington 
National are approximately 50 percent higher on average than fares at 
similar airports unconstrained by the perimeter rule. Such an 
anticompetitive rule should not remain in effect, particularly where 
its anticompetitive impact has long been recognized.
  For this reason, I will continue the struggle to try to remove the 
perimeter rule and other anti-competitive restrictions that increase 
consumer costs and decrease convenience for no apparent benefit.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 37. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
permanently extend the research credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Economic Growth 
Through Innovation Act of 2009. This bill would make permanent the 
current research and development tax credit. Otherwise, this tax credit 
will expire on December 31, 2009.
  A permanent credit would provide an incentive to innovate, and remove 
uncertainty now hanging over businesses as they make research and 
development investment decisions for 2010 and beyond. The research and 
development tax credit was first established in 1981 and has been 
extended and revised repeatedly since then. Failure to make the tax 
credit permanent has led to reduced investment in research, which has 
led to fewer jobs being created in the United States. Tax policies have 
a powerful influence on business investment and hiring decisions, and 
that is why I have chosen to introduce this bill on the first day of 
the 111th Congress. Additionally, both President-elect Obama and I were 
in full agreement during the campaign that making permanent the 
research and development tax credit is critical to spurring investment 
in developing technologies.
  In the 1980s, the U.S. was a leader among nations for providing the 
most generous tax treatment of research and development. By 2004, the 
most recent study, the United States had fallen to 17th, which explains 
why the U.S. is no longer considered by many to be the world leader in 
innovation and technology. A permanent, meaningful research and 
development tax credit will ensure that businesses keep funding 
research and development, which may lead to numerous new discoveries in 
the U.S. such as fuel-efficient vehicles, cancer treatment or the 
development of clean energy.
  Studies have shown that on average, companies invest $94 in research 
and development for every $6 the Federal Government invests in the tax 
credit. While I understand that some economists have estimated this tax 
credit may cost many billions of dollars in tax revenue to the Federal 
government, I believe it is essential to spurring an economic recovery.
  Companies of all sizes, in a wide range of industries, have taken 
advantage of the research and development tax credit during its 
existence. According to a recent study by Ernst & Young, 17,700 
businesses claimed $6.6 billion research and development tax credits on 
their tax returns in 2005, the most recent year available. Almost a 
quarter of these businesses were small businesses with $1 million of 
assets or less, and almost half were businesses with assets of $1-$5 
million, which is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. Firms in the 
manufacturing, information and services sectors claimed the majority of 
the credit, and the states with the highest number of companies 
reporting research and development activity include those States that 
have been hit the hardest by the depressed economy such as Michigan, 
Pennsylvania and California.
  Congress has endorsed the credit by extending it 13 times since 
enactment, and several times the credit has been reinstated 
retroactively. Yet, it has never been made permanent, creating a less 
certain investment atmosphere. With so many Republicans and Democrats 
in agreement that this tax credit must be made permanent, including 
President-elect Obama, I hope this bill will be given swift 
consideration and signed into law during the first few months of 2009 
to increase our nation's ability to innovate, create jobs and improve 
our sagging economy.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 38. A bill to establish a United States Boxing Commission to 
administer the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to be joined by Senator 
Dorgan in introducing the Professional Boxing Amendments Act of 2009. 
This legislation is virtually identical to a

[[Page 94]]

measure reported by the Commerce Committee during the first executive 
session of the 110th Congress, after being approved unanimously by the 
Senate in 2005. Simply put, this bill would better protect professional 
boxing from the fraud, corruption, and ineffective regulation that have 
plagued the sport for far too many years, and that have devastated 
physically and financially many of our Nation's professional boxers. I 
remain committed to moving the Professional Boxing Amendments Act 
through the Senate and I trust that my colleagues will once again vote 
favorably on this important legislation.
  Since 1996, Congress has made efforts to improve the sport of 
professional boxing--and for very good reason. With rare exception, 
professional boxers come from the lowest rung on our economic ladder. 
Often they are the least educated and most exploited athletes in our 
nation. The Professional Boxing Safety Act of 1996 and the Muhammad Ali 
Boxing Reform Act of 2000 established uniform health and safety 
standards for professional boxers, as well as basic protections for 
boxers against the sometimes coercive, exploitative, and unethical 
business practices of promoters, managers, and sanctioning 
organizations. But further action is needed.
  The Professional Boxing Amendments Act would strengthen existing 
Federal boxing law by improving the basic health and safety standards 
for professional boxers, establishing a centralized medical registry to 
be used by local commissions to protect boxers, reducing the arbitrary 
practices of sanctioning organizations, and enhancing the uniformity 
and basic standards for professional boxing contracts. Most 
importantly, this legislation would establish a Federal regulatory 
entity to oversee professional boxing and set basic uniform standards 
for certain aspects of the sport.
  Current law has improved to some extent the state of professional 
boxing. However, I remain concerned, as do many others, that the sport 
remains at risk. In 2003, the Government Accountability Office spent 
more than six months studying ten of the country's busiest state and 
tribal boxing commissions. Government auditors found that many State 
and tribal boxing commissions still do not comply with Federal boxing 
law, and that there is a troubling lack of enforcement by both Federal 
and State officials.
  Ineffective and inconsistent oversight of professional boxing has 
contributed to the continuing scandals, controversies, unethical 
practices, and unnecessary deaths in the sport. These problems have led 
many in professional boxing to conclude that the only solution is an 
effective and accountable Federal boxing commission. The Professional 
Boxing Amendments Act would create such an entity.
  Professional boxing remains the only major sport in the United States 
that does not have a strong, centralized association, league, or other 
regulatory body to establish and enforce uniform rules and practices. 
Because a powerful few benefit greatly from the current system of 
patchwork compliance and enforcement of Federal boxing law, a national 
self-regulating organization--though preferable to Federal government 
oversight is not a realistic option.
  This bill would establish the United States Boxing Commission 
``USBC'' or Commission. The Commission would be responsible for 
protecting the health, safety, and general interests of professional 
boxers. The USBC would also be responsible for ensuring uniformity, 
fairness, and integrity in professional boxing. More specifically, the 
Commission would administer Federal boxing law and coordinate with 
other Federal regulatory agencies to ensure that this law is enforced; 
oversee all professional boxing matches in the United States; and work 
with the boxing industry and local commissions to improve the safety, 
integrity, and professionalism of professional boxing in the United 
States.
  The USBC would also license boxers, promoters, managers, and 
sanctioning organizations. The Commission would have the authority to 
revoke such a license for violations of Federal boxing law, to stop 
unethical or illegal conduct, to protect the health and safety of a 
boxer, or if the revocation is otherwise in the public interest.
  It is important to state clearly and plainly for the record that the 
purpose of the USBC is not to interfere with the daily operations of 
State and tribal boxing commissions. Instead, the Commission would work 
in consultation with local commissions, and it would only exercise its 
authority when reasonable grounds exist for such intervention. In point 
of fact, the Professional Boxing Amendments Act states explicitly that 
it would not prohibit any boxing commission from exercising any of its 
powers, duties, or functions with respect to the regulation or 
supervision of professional boxing to the extent not inconsistent with 
the provisions of Federal boxing law.
  Let there be no doubt, however, of the very basic and pressing need 
in professional boxing for a Federal boxing commission. The 
establishment of the USBC would address that need. The problems that 
plague the sport of professional boxing undermine the credibility of 
the sport in the eyes of the public and--more importantly--compromise 
the safety of boxers. The Professional Boxing Amendments Act provides 
an effective approach to curbing these problems.
  As this measure continues through the legislative process, I fully 
expect Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and 
every other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to 
Washington in a bipartisan manner. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 39. A bill to repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly 
known as the ``Bennett Freeze''; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation that 
would repeal section 10(f) of Public Law 93-531, commonly known as the 
``Bennett Freeze.'' Passage of this legislation would officially mark 
the end of roughly 40 years of litigation and land-lock between the 
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe.
  For decades the Navajo and the Hopi have been engrossed in a bitter 
dispute over land rights in the Black Mesa area just south of Kayenta, 
Arizona. The conflict extends as far back as 1882 when the boundaries 
of the Hopi and Navajo reservations were initially defined resulting in 
a tragic saga of litigation and damaging federal Indian policy. By 
1966, relations between the tribes became so strained over development 
and access to sacred religious sites in the disputed area that the 
federal government imposed a construction freeze on the disputed 
reservation land. The freeze prohibited any additional housing 
development in the Black Mesa area and restricted repairs on existing 
dwellings. This injunction became known as the ``Bennett Freeze,'' 
named after former BIA Commissioner Robert Bennett who imposed the ban.
  The Bennett Freeze was intended to be a temporary measure to prevent 
one tribe taking advantage of another until the land dispute could be 
settled. Unfortunately, the conflict was nowhere near resolution, and 
the construction freeze ultimately devastated economic development in 
northern Arizona for years to come. By some accounts, nearly 8,000 
people currently living in the Bennett Freeze area reside in conditions 
that haven't changed in half a century. While the population of the 
area has increased 65 percent, generations of families have been forced 
to live together in homes that have been declared unfit for human 
habitation by the United Nations and non-governmental organizations. 
Only 3 percent of the families affected by the Bennett Freeze have 
electricity. Only 10 percent have running water. Almost none have 
natural gas.
  In September 2005, the Navajo and Hopi peoples' desire to live 
together in mutual respect prevailed when both tribes approved an 
intergovernmental agreement that resolved all outstanding litigation in 
the Bennett Freeze area. This landmark agreement also clarifies the 
boundaries of the

[[Page 95]]

Navajo and Hopi reservations in Arizona, and ensures that access to 
religious sites of both tribes in protected. As such, the Navajo 
Nation, the Hopi Tribe, and the Department of Interior all support 
congressional legislation to lift the freeze.
  The bill I am introducing today would repeal the Bennett Freeze. The 
intergovernmental compact approved last year by both tribes, the 
Department of Interior, and signed by the U.S. District Court for 
Arizona, marks a new era in Navajo-Hopi relations. Lifting the Bennett 
Freeze gives us an opportunity to put decades of conflict between the 
Navajo and Hopi behind us.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 40. A bill to designate Fossil Creek, a tributary of the Verde 
River in the State of Arizona, as a component of the National Wild and 
Scenic Rivers System; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, 
Senator Kyl, in reintroducing a bill to designate Fossil Creek as a 
Wild and Scenic River.
  Fossil Creek is a thing of beauty. With its picturesque scenery, lush 
riparian ecosystem, unique geological features, and deep iridescent 
blue pools and waterfalls, this tributary to the Wild and Scenic Verde 
River and Lower Colorado River Watershed stretches 14 miles through 
east central Arizona. It is home to a wide variety of wildlife, some of 
which are threatened or endangered species. Over 100 bird species 
inhabit the Fossil Creek area and use it to migrate between the range 
lowlands and the Mogollon-Colorado Plateau highlands. Fossil Creek also 
supports a variety of aquatic species and is one of the few perennial 
streams in Arizona with multiple native fish.
  Fossil Creek was named in the 1800s when early explorers described 
the fossil-like appearance of creek-side rocks and vegetation coated 
with calcium carbonate deposits from the creek's water. In the early 
1900s, pioneers recognized the potential for hydroelectric power 
generation in the creek's constant and abundant spring fed base-flow. 
They claimed the channel's water rights and built a dam system and 
generating facilities known as the Childs-Irving hydro-project. Over 
time, the project was acquired by Arizona Public Service, APS, one of 
the state's largest electric utility providers serving more than a 
million Arizonans. Because Childs-Irving produced less then half of 1 
percent of the total power generated by APS, the decision was made 
ultimately to decommission the aging dam and restore Fossil Creek to 
its pre-settlement conditions.
  APS has partnered with various environmental groups, federal land 
managers, and state, tribal and local governments to safely remove the 
Childs-Irving power generating facilities and restore the riparian 
ecosystem. In 2005, APS removed the dam system and returned full flows 
to Fossil Creek. Researchers predict Fossil Creek will soon become a 
fully regenerated Southwest native fishery providing a most-valuable 
opportunity to reintroduce at least six threatened and endangered 
native fish species as well as rebuild the native populations presently 
living in the creek.
  There is a growing need to provide additional protection and adequate 
staffing and management at Fossil Creek. Recreational visitation to the 
riverbed is expected to increase dramatically, and by the Forest 
Service's own admission, they aren't able to manage current levels of 
visitation or the pressures of increased use. While responsible 
recreation and other activities at Fossil Creek are to be encouraged, 
we must also ensure the long-term success of the ongoing restoration 
efforts. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would help to 
ensure the appropriate level of protection and resources are devoted to 
Fossil Creek. Already, Fossil Creek has been found eligible for Wild 
and Scenic designation by the Forest Service and the proposal has 
widespread support from surrounding communities. All of the lands 
potentially affected by a designation are owned and managed by the 
Forest Service and will not affect private property owners. I fully 
expect that as this measure continues through the legislative process, 
Congress will ensure that funding offsets are provided to it and every 
other spending measure as we work to restore fiscal discipline to 
Washington in a bipartisan manner.
  Fossil Creek is a unique Arizona treasure, and would benefit greatly 
from the protection and recognition offered through Wild and Scenic 
designation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 49. A bill to help Federal prosecutors and investigators combat 
public corruption by strengthening and clarifying the law; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. Presdient, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn 
once again to introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements 
Act of 2009, a bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of 
Federal criminal law and provide new tools to help investigators and 
prosecutors attack public corruption nationwide.
  The start of a new Congress presents a unique opportunity to restore 
the faith of the American people in their government. That is why I 
sought to offer an early version of this bill as my first amendment two 
years ago when that new Congress began. Regrettably, a Republican 
objection to it prevented its adoption at that time.
  As we have seen in recent months, public corruption can erode the 
trust the American people have in those who are given the privilege of 
public service. Too often, though, loopholes in existing laws have 
meant that corrupt conduct can go unchecked.
  Make no mistake: The stain of corruption has spread to all levels of 
government. This is a problem that victimizes every American by 
chipping away at the foundations of our democracy. Rooting out the 
kinds of public corruption that have resulted in convictions of members 
of both the Senate and the House, and many others, requires us to give 
prosecutors the tools and resources they need to investigate and 
prosecute criminal public corruption offenses. This bill will do 
exactly that.
  The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today will provide 
investigators and prosecutors more time and, even more crucially, more 
resources to pursue public corruption cases. It also amends several key 
statutes to broaden their application in corruption contexts and to 
prevent corrupt public officials and their accomplices from evading or 
defeating prosecution based on existing legal ambiguities.
  The bill provides significant and much-needed additional funding for 
public corruption enforcement. Since September 11, 2001, Federal Bureau 
of Investigation, FBI, resources have been shifted away from the 
pursuit of white collar crime to counterterrorism. Director Mueller has 
said that public corruption is among the FBI's top investigative 
priorities, but a September 2005 report by the Department of Justice 
Inspector General found that, from 2000 to 2004, there was an overall 
reduction in public corruption matters handled by the FBI. More 
recently, a study by the research group Transactional Records Access 
Clearinghouse found that the prosecution of all kinds of white collar 
crimes is down 27 percent since 2000, and official corruption cases 
have dropped in the same period by 14 percent. The Wall Street Journal 
reported in 2007 that the investigation of an elected Federal official 
stalled for six months because the investigating U.S. Attorney's Office 
could not afford to replace the prosecutor who had previously handled 
the case. We must reverse this trend and make sure that law enforcement 
has the tools and the resources it needs to confront these serious and 
corrosive crimes.
  Efforts to combat terrorism and public corruption are not mutually 
exclusive. A bribed customs official who allows a terrorist to smuggle 
contraband into our country, or a corrupt consular officer who 
illegally supplies U.S. entry visas to would-be terrorists can cause 
grave harm to our national security.

[[Page 96]]

  The bill also extends the statute of limitations from 5 to 6 years 
for the most serious public corruption offenses. Public corruption 
cases are among the most difficult and time-consuming cases to 
investigate. Bank fraud, arson and passport fraud, among other 
offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption 
offenses cut to the heart of our democracy. This modest increase to the 
statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our corruption 
investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.
  This bill goes further by amending several key statutes to broaden 
their application in corruption and fraud contexts and to eliminate 
legal ambiguities that can hinder prosecution of serious corruption. 
The bill includes a fix to the gratuities statute that makes clear that 
public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what is 
permitted by existing rules and regulations, given to them because of 
their official position. This important provision contains appropriate 
safeguards to ensure that only corrupt conduct is prosecuted, but it 
puts teeth behind the ethical reforms the Senate adopted under the 
leadership of Senator Obama.
  The bill also appropriately clarifies the definition of what it means 
for a public official to perform an ``official act'' for the purposes 
of the bribery statute and closes several other gaps in current law. 
The bill adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the 
Federal wiretap and racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional 
amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally-
funded State programs, and expands the venue for perjury and 
obstruction of justice prosecutions.
  Finally, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for several 
laws dealing with official misconduct, including theft of Government 
property and bribery. These increases reflect the serious and corrosive 
nature of these crimes, and would harmonize the punishment for these 
crimes with other similar statutes.
  If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct 
that we have witnessed over the past several years in high-profile 
public corruption cases, Congress should enact meaningful legislation 
to give investigators and prosecutors the tools and resources they need 
to enforce our laws. Passing ethics and lobbying reform in the last 
Congress was a step in the right direction. Now we should finish the 
job by strengthening the criminal law to enable federal investigators 
and prosecutors to bring those who undermine the public trust to 
justice. I am disappointed that Republican objections prevented the 
full Senate from passing this critical bill early in the last Congress. 
I hope that this year all Senators will support this bipartisan bill 
and take firm action to stamp out intolerable corruption.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 49

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

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

     ``Sec. 3299A. Corruption offenses

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

``3299A. Corruption offenses.''.
       (c) Application of Amendment.--The amendments made by this 
     section shall not apply to any offense committed before the 
     date of enactment of this Act.

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

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

     SEC. 4. VENUE FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 6. PENALTY FOR SECTION 641 VIOLATIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 10. ADDITIONAL RICO PREDICATES.

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

[[Page 97]]

       (1) by striking ``section 641 (relating to public money, 
     property, or records),''; and
       (2) by striking ``section 666 (relating to theft or bribery 
     concerning programs receiving Federal funds),''.

     SEC. 11. ADDITIONAL WIRETAP PREDICATES.

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

     SEC. 12. CLARIFICATION OF CRIME OF ILLEGAL GRATUITIES.

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

     SEC. 13. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF OFFICIAL ACT.

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

     SEC. 14. CLARIFICATION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT BRIBERY.

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

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

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

     ``Sec. 1624. Venue

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

``1624. Venue.''.

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

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

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

       (a) Directive to Sentencing Commission.--Pursuant to its 
     authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States 
     Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States 
     Sentencing Commission shall review and amend its guidelines 
     and its policy statements applicable to persons convicted of 
     an offense under sections 201, 641, and 666 of title 18, 
     United States Code, in order to reflect the intent of 
     Congress that such penalties be increased in comparison to 
     those currently provided by the guidelines and policy 
     statements.
       (b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the 
     Commission shall--
       (1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy 
     statements reflect Congress' intent that the guidelines and 
     policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses 
     described in subsection (a), the incidence of such offenses, 
     and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate 
     punishment to prevent such offenses;
       (2) consider the extent to which the guidelines may or may 
     not appropriately account for--
       (A) the potential and actual harm to the public and the 
     amount of any loss resulting from the offense;
       (B) the level of sophistication and planning involved in 
     the offense;
       (C) whether the offense was committed for purposes of 
     commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
       (D) whether the defendant acted with intent to cause either 
     physical or property harm in committing the offense;
       (E) the extent to which the offense represented an abuse of 
     trust by the offender and was committed in a manner that 
     undermined public confidence in the Federal, State, or local 
     government; and
       (F) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect 
     of creating a threat to public health or safety, injury to 
     any person or even death;
       (3) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and with other sentencing guidelines;
       (4) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating 
     circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally 
     applicable sentencing ranges;
       (5) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing 
     guidelines; and
       (6) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes 
     of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, 
     United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 50. A bill to amend chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to 
authorize the use of clinical social workers to conduct evaluations to 
determine work-related emotional and mental illnesses; to the Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I introduce the Clinical Social 
Workers' Recognition Act to correct a continuing problem in the Federal 
Employees Compensation Act. This bill will also provide clinical social 
workers the recognition they deserve as independent providers of 
quality mental health care services.
  Clinical social workers are authorized to independently diagnose and 
treat mental illnesses through public and private health insurance 
plans across the Nation. However, Title V of the United States Code, 
does not permit the use of mental health evaluations conducted by 
clinical social workers for use as evidence in determining workers' 
compensation claims brought by Federal employees. The bill I am 
introducing corrects this problem.
  It is a sad irony that Federal employees may select a clinical social 
worker through their health plans to provide mental health services, 
but may not go to this same professional for workers' compensation 
evaluations. The failure to recognize the validity of evaluations 
provided by clinical social workers unnecessarily limits Federal 
employees' selection of a provider to conduct the workers' compensation 
mental health evaluations. Lack of this recognition may well impose an 
undue burden on federal employees where clinical social workers are the 
only available providers of mental health care.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 50

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

       Section 8101 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     and clinical social workers''; and
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``osteopathic 
     practitioners'' and inserting ``osteopathic practitioners, 
     clinical social workers,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 51. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to recognize the 
United States Military Cancer Institute as an establishment within the 
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, to require the 
Institute to promote the health of members of the Armed Forces and 
their dependents by

[[Page 98]]

enhancing cancer research and treatment, to provide for a study of the 
epidemiological causes of cancer among various ethnic groups for cancer 
prevention and early detection efforts, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I am, again, introducing the United 
States Military Cancer Institute Research Collaborative Act. This 
legislation, twice passed by the Senate yet unsuccessful in the House, 
would formally establish the United States Military Cancer Institute, 
USMCI, and support the collaborative augmentation of research efforts 
in cancer epidemiology, prevention and control. Although the USMCI 
already exists as an informal collaborative effort, this bill will 
formally establish the institution with a mission of providing for the 
maintenance of health in the military by enhancing cancer research and 
treatment, and studying the epidemiological causes of cancer among 
various ethnic groups. By formally establishing the USMCI, it will be 
in a better position to unite military research efforts with other 
cancer research centers.
  Cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment are significant 
issues for the military population, thus the USMCI was organized to 
coordinate the existing military cancer assets. The USMCI has a 
comprehensive database of its beneficiary population of 9 million 
people. The military's nationwide tumor registry, the Automated Central 
Tumor Registry, has acquired more than 180,000 cases in the last 14 
years, and a serum repository of 30 million specimens from military 
personnel collected sequentially since 1987. This population is 
predominantly Caucasian, African-American, and Hispanic.
  The USMCI currently resides in the Washington, D.C., area, and its 
components are located at the National Naval Medical Center, the 
Malcolm Grow Medical Center, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 
and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. There are more 
than 70 research workers, both active duty and Department of Defense 
civilian scientists, working in the USMCI.
  The Director of the USMCI, Dr. John Potter, intends to expand 
research activities to military medical centers across the Nation. 
Special emphasis will be placed on the study of genetic and 
environmental factors in carcinogenesis among the entire population, 
including Asian, Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic 
subpopulations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 51

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

     SECTION 1. THE UNITED STATES MILITARY CANCER INSTITUTE.

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

     ``Sec. 2118. United States Military Cancer Institute

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

``2118. United States Military Cancer Institute.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 52. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide 100 percent reimbursement for medical assistance provided to a 
Native Hawaiian through a Federally qualified health center or a Native 
Hawaiian health care system; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Native 
Hawaiian Medicaid Coverage Act. This legislation would authorize a 
Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent, FMAP, of 100 percent for the 
payment of health care costs of Native Hawaiians who receive health 
care from Federally Qualified Health Centers or the Native Hawaiian 
Health Care System.
  This bill is modeled on the Native Alaskan Health Care Act, which 
provides for a Federal Medicaid Assistance Percent of 100 percent for 
payment of health care costs for Native Alaskans by the Indian Health 
Service, an Indian tribe, or a tribal organization.
  Community health centers serve as the ``safety net'' for uninsured 
and medically underserved Native Hawaiians and other United States 
citizens, providing comprehensive primary and preventive health 
services to the entire community. Outpatient services offered to the 
entire family include comprehensive primary care, preventive health 
maintenance, and education outreach in the local community. Community 
health centers, with their multidisciplinary approach, offer cost 
effective integration of health promotion and wellness with chronic 
disease management and primary care focused on serving vulnerable 
populations.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 52

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Native Hawaiian Medicaid 
     Coverage Act of 2009''.

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

       (a) Medicaid.--The third sentence of section 1905(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended by 
     inserting ``, and with respect to medical assistance provided 
     to a Native Hawaiian (as defined in section 12 of the Native 
     Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act) through a Federally-
     qualified health center or a Native Hawaiian health care 
     system (as so defined) whether directly, by referral, or 
     under contract or other arrangement between a Federally-
     qualified health center or a Native Hawaiian health care 
     system and another health care provider'' before the period.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     applies to medical assistance provided on or after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 53. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of services provided by nursing school clinics 
under State Medicaid programs; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am, again, introducing the Nursing 
School Clinics Act. This measure builds on our concerted efforts to 
provide access to quality health care for all Americans by offering 
grants and

[[Page 99]]

incentives for nursing schools to establish primary care clinics in 
underserved areas where additional medical services are most needed. In 
addition, this measure provides the opportunity for nursing schools to 
enhance the scope of student training and education by providing 
firsthand clinical experience in primary care facilities.
  Primary care clinics administered by nursing schools are university 
of nonprofit primary care centers developed mainly in collaboration 
with university schools of nursing and the communities they serve. 
These centers are staffed by faculty and staff who are nurse 
practitioners and public health nurses. Students supplement patient 
care while receiving preceptorships provided by college of nursing 
faculty and primary care physicians, often associated with academic 
institutions, who serve as collaborators with nurse practitioners. To 
date, the comprehensive models of care provided by nursing clinics have 
yielded excellent results, including significantly fewer emergency room 
visits, fewer hospital inpatient days, and less use of specialists, as 
compared to conventional primary health care.
  The bill reinforces the principle of combining health care delivery 
in underserved areas with the education of advanced practice nurses. To 
accomplish these objectives, Title XIX of the Social Security Act would 
be amended to designate that the services provided in these nursing 
school clinics are reimbursable under Medicaid. The combination of 
grants and the provision of Medicaid reimbursement furnishes the 
financial incentives for clinic operators to establish the clinics.
  In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-effective 
and quality health care to all Americans, we must consider a wide range 
of proposals, both large and small. Most importantly, we must approach 
the issue of health care with creativity and determination, ensuring 
that all reasonable avenues are pursued. Nurses have always been an 
integral part of health care delivery. The Nursing School Clinics Act 
recognizes the central role nurses can perform as care givers to the 
medically underserved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                  S. 53

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Nursing School Clinics Act 
     of 2009''.

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

       (a) In General.--Section 1905(a) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (27), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (28) as paragraph (29); and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (27), the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(28) nursing school clinic services (as defined in 
     subsection (y)) furnished by or under the supervision of a 
     nurse practitioner or a clinical nurse specialist (as defined 
     in section 1861(aa)(5)), whether or not the nurse 
     practitioner or clinical nurse specialist is under the 
     supervision of, or associated with, a physician or other 
     health care provider; and''.
       (b) Nursing School Clinic Services Defined.--Section 1905 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(y) The term `nursing school clinic services' means 
     services provided by a health care facility operated by an 
     accredited school of nursing which provides primary care, 
     long-term care, mental health counseling, home health 
     counseling, home health care, or other health care services 
     which are within the scope of practice of a registered 
     nurse.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1902(a)(10)(C)(iv) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(C)(iv)) is 
     amended by inserting ``and (28)'' after ``(24)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall be effective with respect to payments made under a 
     State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) for calendar quarters commencing with 
     the first calendar quarter beginning after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 54. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for patient protection by establishing minimum nurse staffing 
ratios at certain Medicare providers, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am, again, reintroducing the 
Registered Nurse Safe Staffing Act. For over four decades I have been a 
committed supporter of nurses and the delivery of safe patient care. 
While enforceable regulations will help to ensure patient safety, the 
complexity and variability of today's hospitals require that staffing 
patters be determined at the hospital and unit level, with the 
professional input of registered nurses. More than a decade of research 
demonstrates that nurse staff levels and the skill mix of nursing staff 
directly affect the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients. Studies 
show that when there are more registered nurses, there are lower 
mortality rates, shorter lengths of stay, reduced costs, and fewer 
complications.
  A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association 
found that the risks of patient mortality rose by 7 percent for every 
additional patient added to the average nurse's workload. In the midst 
of a nursing shortage and increasing financial pressures, hospitals 
often find it difficult to maintain adequate staffing. While nursing 
research indicates that adequate registered nurse staffing is vital to 
the health and safety of patients, there is no standardized public 
reporting mechanism, nor enforcement of adequate staffing plans. The 
only regulations addressing nursing staff exists vaguely in Medicare 
Conditions of Participation which states: ``The nursing service must 
have an adequate number of licensed registered nurses, licensed 
practice, vocational, nurses, and other personnel to provide nursing 
care to all patients as needed''.
  This bill will require Medicare Participating Hospitals to develop 
and maintain reliable and valid systems to determine sufficient 
registered nurse staffing. Given the demands that the healthcare 
industry faces today, it is our responsibility to ensure that patients 
have access to adequate nursing care. However, we must ensure that the 
decisions by which care is provided are made by the clinical experts, 
the registered nurses caring for these patients. Support of this bill 
supports our Nation's nurses during a critical shortage, but more 
importantly, works to ensure the safety of their patients.
  Mr. President. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 54

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Registered Nurse Safe 
     Staffing Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

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

       (a) Requirement of Medicare Provider Agreement.--Section 
     1866(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395cc(a)(1)) is amended--

[[Page 100]]

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


      ``staffing requirements for medicare participating hospitals

       ``Sec. 1899.  (a) Establishment of Staffing System.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each participating hospital shall adopt 
     and implement a staffing system that ensures a number of 
     registered nurses on each shift and in each unit of the 
     hospital to ensure appropriate staffing levels for patient 
     care.
       ``(2) Staffing system requirements.--Subject to paragraph 
     (3), a staffing system adopted and implemented under this 
     section shall--
       ``(A) be based upon input from the direct care-giving 
     registered nurse staff or their exclusive representatives, as 
     well as the chief nurse executive;
       ``(B) be based upon the number of patients and the level 
     and variability of intensity of care to be provided, with 
     appropriate consideration given to admissions, discharges, 
     and transfers during each shift;
       ``(C) account for contextual issues affecting staffing and 
     the delivery of care, including architecture and geography of 
     the environment and available technology;
       ``(D) reflect the level of preparation and experience of 
     those providing care;
       ``(E) account for staffing level effectiveness or 
     deficiencies in related health care classifications, 
     including but not limited to, certified nurse assistants, 
     licensed vocational nurses, licensed psychiatric technicians, 
     nursing assistants, aides, and orderlies;
       ``(F) reflect staffing levels recommended by specialty 
     nursing organizations;
       ``(G) establish upwardly adjustable registered nurse-to-
     patient ratios based upon registered nurses' assessment of 
     patient acuity and existing conditions;
       ``(H) provide that a registered nurse shall not be assigned 
     to work in a particular unit without first having established 
     the ability to provide professional care in such unit; and
       ``(I) be based on methods that assure validity and 
     reliability.
       ``(3) Limitation.--A staffing system adopted and 
     implemented under paragraph (1) may not--
       ``(A) set registered-nurse levels below those required by 
     any Federal or State law or regulation; or
       ``(B) utilize any minimum registered nurse-to-patient ratio 
     established pursuant to paragraph (2)(G) as an upper limit on 
     the staffing of the hospital to which such ratio applies.
       ``(b) Reporting, and Release to Public, of Certain Staffing 
     Information.--
       ``(1) Requirements for hospitals.--Each participating 
     hospital shall--
       ``(A) post daily for each shift, in a clearly visible 
     place, a document that specifies in a uniform manner (as 
     prescribed by the Secretary) the current number of licensed 
     and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for patient 
     care in each unit of the hospital, identifying specifically 
     the number of registered nurses;
       ``(B) upon request, make available to the public--
       ``(i) the nursing staff information described in 
     subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) a detailed written description of the staffing 
     system established by the hospital pursuant to subsection 
     (a); and
       ``(C) submit to the Secretary in a uniform manner (as 
     prescribed by the Secretary) the nursing staff information 
     described in subparagraph (A) through electronic data 
     submission not less frequently than quarterly.
       ``(2) Secretarial responsibilities.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) make the information submitted pursuant to paragraph 
     (1)(C) publicly available, including by publication of such 
     information on the Internet website of the Department of 
     Health and Human Services; and
       ``(B) provide for the auditing of such information for 
     accuracy as a part of the process of determining whether an 
     institution is a hospital for purposes of this title.
       ``(c) Recordkeeping; Data Collection; Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Recordkeeping.--Each participating hospital shall 
     maintain for a period of at least 3 years (or, if longer, 
     until the conclusion of pending enforcement activities) such 
     records as the Secretary deems necessary to determine whether 
     the hospital has adopted and implemented a staffing system 
     pursuant to subsection (a).
       ``(2) Data collection on certain outcomes.--The Secretary 
     shall require the collection, maintenance, and submission of 
     data by each participating hospital sufficient to establish 
     the link between the staffing system established pursuant to 
     subsection (a) and--
       ``(A) patient acuity from maintenance of acuity data 
     through entries on patients' charts;
       ``(B) patient outcomes that are nursing sensitive, such as 
     patient falls, adverse drug events, injuries to patients, 
     skin breakdown, pneumonia, infection rates, upper 
     gastrointestinal bleeding, shock, cardiac arrest, length of 
     stay, and patient readmissions;
       ``(C) operational outcomes, such as work-related injury or 
     illness, vacancy and turnover rates, nursing care hours per 
     patient day, on-call use, overtime rates, and needle-stick 
     injuries; and
       ``(D) patient complaints related to staffing levels.
       ``(3) Evaluation.--Each participating hospital shall 
     annually evaluate its staffing system and establish minimum 
     registered nurse staffing ratios to assure ongoing 
     reliability and validity of the system and ratios. The 
     evaluation shall be conducted by a joint management-staff 
     committee comprised of at least 50 percent of registered 
     nurses who provide direct patient care.
       ``(d) Enforcement.--
       ``(1) Responsibility.--The Secretary shall enforce the 
     requirements and prohibitions of this section in accordance 
     with the succeeding provisions of this subsection.
       ``(2) Procedures for receiving and investigating 
     complaints.--The Secretary shall establish procedures under 
     which--
       ``(A) any person may file a complaint that a participating 
     hospital has violated a requirement or a prohibition of this 
     section; and
       ``(B) such complaints are investigated by the Secretary.
       ``(3) Remedies.--If the Secretary determines that a 
     participating hospital has violated a requirement of this 
     section, the Secretary--
       ``(A) shall require the facility to establish a corrective 
     action plan to prevent the recurrence of such violation; and
       ``(B) may impose civil money penalties under paragraph (4).
       ``(4) Civil money penalties.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to any other penalties 
     prescribed by law, the Secretary may impose a civil money 
     penalty of not more than $10,000 for each knowing violation 
     of a requirement of this section, except that the Secretary 
     shall impose a civil money penalty of more than $10,000 for 
     each such violation in the case of a participating hospital 
     that the Secretary determines has a pattern or practice of 
     such violations (with the amount of such additional penalties 
     being determined in accordance with a schedule or methodology 
     specified in regulations).
       ``(B) Procedures.--The provisions of section 1128A (other 
     than subsections (a) and (b)) shall apply to a civil money 
     penalty under this paragraph in the same manner as such 
     provisions apply to a penalty or proceeding under section 
     1128A.
       ``(C) Public notice of violations.--
       ``(i) Internet website.--The Secretary shall publish on the 
     Internet website of the Department of Health and Human 
     Services the names of participating hospitals on which civil 
     money penalties have been imposed under this section, the 
     violation for which the penalty was imposed, and such 
     additional information as the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.
       ``(ii) Change of ownership.--With respect to a 
     participating hospital that had a change in ownership, as 
     determined by the Secretary, penalties imposed on the 
     hospital while under previous ownership shall no longer be 
     published by the Secretary of such Internet website after the 
     1-year period beginning on the date of change in ownership.
       ``(e) Whistleblower Protections.--
       ``(1) Prohibition of discrimination and retaliation.--A 
     participating hospital shall not discriminate or retaliate in 
     any manner against any patient or employee of the hospital 
     because that patient or employee, or any other person, has 
     presented a grievance or complaint, or has initiated or 
     cooperated in any investigation or proceeding of any kind, 
     relating to the staffing system or other requirements and 
     prohibitions of this section.
       ``(2) Relief for prevailing employees.--An employee of a 
     participating hospital who has been discriminated or 
     retaliated against in employment in violation of this 
     subsection may initiate judicial action in a United States 
     district court and shall be entitled to reinstatement, 
     reimbursement for lost wages, and work benefits caused by the 
     unlawful acts of the employing hospital. Prevailing employees 
     are entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs 
     associated with pursuing the case.
       ``(3) Relief for prevailing patients.--A patient who has 
     been discriminated or retaliated against in violation of this 
     subsection may initiate judicial action in a United States 
     district court. A prevailing patient shall be entitled to 
     liquidated damages of $5,000 for a violation of this statute 
     in addition to any other damages under other applicable 
     statutes, regulations, or common law. Prevailing patients are 
     entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs associated 
     with pursuing the case.
       ``(4) Limitation on actions.--No action may be brought 
     under paragraph (2) or (3) more than 2 years after the 
     discrimination or retaliation with respect to which the 
     action is brought.
       ``(5) Treatment of adverse employment actions.--For 
     purposes of this subsection--

[[Page 101]]

       ``(A) an adverse employment action shall be treated as 
     retaliation or discrimination; and
       ``(B) the term `adverse employment action' includes--
       ``(i) the failure to promote an individual or provide any 
     other employment-related benefit for which the individual 
     would otherwise be eligible;
       ``(ii) an adverse evaluation or decision made in relation 
     to accreditation, certification, credentialing, or licensing 
     of the individual; and
       ``(iii) a personnel action that is adverse to the 
     individual concerned.
       ``(f) Relationship to State Laws.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed as exempting or relieving any person from 
     any liability, duty, penalty, or punishment provided by any 
     present or future law of any State or political subdivision 
     of a State, other than any such law which purports to require 
     or permit the doing of any act which would be an unlawful 
     practice under this title.
       ``(g) Relationship To Conduct Prohibited Under the National 
     Labor Relations Act or Other Collective Bargaining Laws.--
     Nothing in this section shall be construed as permitting 
     conduct prohibited under the National Labor Relations Act or 
     under any other Federal, State, or local collective 
     bargaining law.
       ``(h) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are appropriate and necessary to implement 
     this section.
       ``(i) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Participating hospital.--The term `participating 
     hospital' means a hospital that has entered into a provider 
     agreement under section 1866.
       ``(2) Registered nurse.--The term `registered nurse' means 
     an individual who has been granted a license to practice as a 
     registered nurse in at least 1 State.
       ``(3) Unit.--The term `unit' of a hospital is an 
     organizational department or separate geographic area of a 
     hospital, such as a burn unit, a labor and delivery room, a 
     post-anesthesia service area, an emergency department, an 
     operating room, a pediatric unit, a stepdown or intermediate 
     care unit, a specialty care unit, a telemetry unit, a general 
     medical care unit, a subacute care unit, and a transitional 
     inpatient care unit.
       ``(4) Shift.--The term `shift' means a scheduled set of 
     hours or duty period to be worked at a participating 
     hospital.
       ``(5) Person.--The term `person' means 1 or more 
     individuals, associations, corporations, unincorporated 
     organizations, or labor unions.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2010.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 55. A bill to amend the XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide improved reimbursement for clinical social worker services 
under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am, again, introducing legislation 
to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to correct 
discrepancies in the reimbursement of clinical social workers covered 
through Medicare, Part B. These three proposed changes contained in 
this legislation clarify the current payment process for clinical 
social workers and establish a reimbursement methodology for the 
profession that is similar to other health care professionals 
reimbursed through the Medicare program.
  First, this legislation sets payment for clinical social worker 
services according to a fee schedule established by the Secretary. 
Second, it explicitly states that services and supplies furnished by a 
clinical social worker are a covered Medicare expense, just as these 
services are covered for other mental health professionals in Medicare. 
Third, the bill allows clinical social workers to be reimbursed for 
services provided to a client who is hospitalized.
  Clinical social workers are valued members of our health care 
provider network. They are legally regulated in every state of the 
nation and are recognized as independent providers of mental health 
care throughout the health care system. It is time to correct the 
disparate reimbursement treatment of this profession under Medicare.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 55

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

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

       (a) In General.--Section 1833(a)(1)(F)(ii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(F)(ii)) is amended to 
     read as follows: ``(ii) the amount determined by a fee 
     schedule established by the Secretary,''.
       (b) Definition of Clinical Social Worker Services 
     Expanded.--Section 1861(hh)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395x(hh)(2)) is amended by striking ``services 
     performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     paragraph (1))'' and inserting ``such services and such 
     services and supplies furnished as an incident to such 
     services performed by a clinical social worker (as defined in 
     paragraph (1))''.
       (c) Clinical Social Worker Services Not To Be Included in 
     Inpatient Hospital Services.--Section 1861(b)(4) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(b)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``and services'' and inserting ``clinical social 
     worker services, and services''.
       (d) Treatment of Services Furnished in Inpatient Setting.--
     Section 1832(a)(2)(B)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395k(a)(2)(B)(iii)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``and services'' and inserting ``clinical 
     social worker services, and services''; and
       (2) by adding ``and'' at the end.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made for clinical social worker 
     services furnished on or after January 1, 2010.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 56. A bill to amend the XVIII of the Social Security Act to remove 
the restriction that a clinical psychologist or clinical social worker 
provide services in a comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility 
to a patient only under the care of a physician; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I again introduce legislation to 
authorize the autonomous functioning of clinical psychologists and 
clinical social workers within the Medicare comprehensive outpatient 
rehabilitation facility program.
  In my judgment, it is unfortunate that Medicare requires clinical 
supervision of the services provided by certain health professionals 
and does not allow them to function to the full extent of their State 
practice licenses. Those who need the services of outpatient 
rehabilitation facilities should have access to a wide range of social 
and behavioral science expertise. Clinical psychologists and clinical 
social workers are recognized as independent providers of mental health 
care services under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, the 
TRICARE Military Health Program of the Uniformed Services, the Medicare 
(Part B) Program, and numerous private insurance plans. This 
legislation will ensure that these qualified professionals achieve the 
same recognition under the Medicare comprehensive outpatient 
rehabilitation facility program.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 56

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Autonomy for Psychologists 
     and Social Workers Act of 2009''.

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

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(cc)(2)(E) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(cc)(2)(E)) is amended by 
     striking ``physician'' and inserting ``physician, except that 
     a patient receiving qualified psychologist services (as 
     defined in subsection (ii)) may be under the care of a 
     clinical psychologist with respect to such services to the 
     extent permitted under State law and except that a patient 
     receiving clinical social worker services (as defined in 
     subsection (hh)(2)) may be under the care of a clinical 
     social worker with respect to such services to the extent 
     permitted under State law''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to services provided on or after January 1, 2010.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 57. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
establish

[[Page 102]]

a psychology post-doctoral fellowship program, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing legislation to 
amend Title VII of the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
psychology post-doctoral program. Psychologists have made a unique 
contribution in reaching out to the Nation's medically underserved 
populations. Expertise in behavioral science is useful in addressing 
grave concerns such as violence, addiction, mental illness, adolescent 
and child behavioral disorders, and family disruption. Establishment of 
a psychology post-doctoral program could be an effective way to find 
solutions to these issues.
  Similar programs supporting additional, specialized training in 
traditionally underserved settings have been successful in retaining 
participants to serve the same populations. For example, mental health 
professionals who have participated in these specialized federally 
funded programs have tended not only to meet their repayment 
obligations, but have continued to work in the public sector or with 
the underserved.
  While a doctorate in psychology provides broad-based knowledge and 
mastery in a wide variety of clinical skills, specialized post-doctoral 
fellowship programs help to develop particular diagnostic and treatment 
skills required to respond effectively to underserved populations. For 
example, what appears to be poor academic motivation in a child 
recently relocated from Southeast Asia might actually reflect a 
cultural value of reserve rather than a disinterest in academic 
learning. Specialized assessment skills enable the clinician to 
initiate effective treatment.
  Domestic violence poses a significant public health problem and is 
not just a problem for the criminal justice system. Violence against 
women results in thousands of hospitalizations a year. Rates of child 
and spouse abuse in rural areas are particularly high, as are the rates 
of alcohol abuse and depression in adolescents. A post-doctoral 
fellowship program in the psychology of the rural populations could be 
of special benefit in addressing these problems.
  Given the demonstrated success and effectiveness of specialized 
training programs, it is incumbent upon us to encourage participation 
in post-doctoral fellowships that respond to the needs of the Nation's 
underserved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 57

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Psychologists in the Service 
     of the Public Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. GRANTS FOR FELLOWSHIPS IN PSYCHOLOGY.

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

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

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     psychology post-doctoral fellowship program to make grants to 
     and enter into contracts with eligible entities to encourage 
     the provision of psychological training and services in 
     underserved treatment areas.
       ``(b) Eligible Entities.--
       ``(1) Individuals.--In order to receive a grant under this 
     section an individual shall submit an application to the 
     Secretary at such time, in such form, and containing such 
     information as the Secretary shall require, including a 
     certification that such individual--
       ``(A) has received a doctoral degree through a graduate 
     program in psychology provided by an accredited institution 
     at the time such grant is awarded;
       ``(B) will provide services to a medically underserved 
     population during the period of such grant;
       ``(C) will comply with the provisions of subsection (c); 
     and
       ``(D) will provide any other information or assurances as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(2) Institutions.--In order to receive a grant or 
     contract under this section, an institution shall submit an 
     application to the Secretary at such time, in such form, and 
     containing such information as the Secretary shall require, 
     including a certification that such institution--
       ``(A) is an entity, approved by the State, that provides 
     psychological services in medically underserved areas or to 
     medically underserved populations (including entities that 
     care for the mentally retarded, mental health institutions, 
     and prisons);
       ``(B) will use amounts provided to such institution under 
     this section to provide financial assistance in the form of 
     fellowships to qualified individuals who meet the 
     requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph 
     (1);
       ``(C) will not use more than 10 percent of amounts provided 
     under this section to pay for the administrative costs of any 
     fellowship programs established with such funds; and
       ``(D) will provide any other information or assurances as 
     the Secretary determines appropriate.
       ``(c) Continued Provision of Services.--Any individual who 
     receives a grant or fellowship under this section shall 
     certify to the Secretary that such individual will continue 
     to provide the type of services for which such grant or 
     fellowship is awarded for not less than 1 year after the term 
     of the grant or fellowship has expired.
       ``(d) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section, including 
     regulations that define the terms `medically underserved 
     areas' and `medically underserved populations'.
       ``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $5,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2010 through 2012.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 58. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify 
the application of the tonnage tax on vessels operating in the dual 
United States domestic and foreign trades, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. Presdient, foreign registered ships now carry 97 
percent of the imports and exports moving in United States 
international trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards 
than United States registered ships, and are virtually untaxed. Their 
costs of operation are, therefore, lower than United States ship 
operating costs, which explains their 97 percent market share.
  Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for United 
States-flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress 
enacted, under the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-
357, Subchapter R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a 
vessel, rather than taxing international income at a 35 percent 
corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and Senate 
conference, language was included, which states that a United States 
vessel cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that 
vessel also operates in United States domestic commerce for more than 
30 days per year.
  This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the 
tonnage tax for those United States ships that operate in both domestic 
and international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their 
competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that 
ships operating in United States domestic trade already have 
significant cost disadvantages. Specifically, (1) they are built in 
higher priced United States shipyards; (2) do not receive Maritime 
Security Payments, even when operated in international trade; and (3) 
are owned by United States-based American corporations. The inability 
of these domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their 
international service is a further, unnecessary burden on their 
competitive position in foreign commerce.
  When windows of opportunity present themselves in international 
trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the 
participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit 
makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps 
American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the 
tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation 
of American built ships in international commerce, and further 
exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its 
international cargo.

[[Page 103]]

  These concerns were of sufficient importance that in December 2006 
Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but only for 
approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These ships 
primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also carry 
cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade 
(Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 
2006.)
  The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great 
Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate 
temporarily in international trade, totals 13 United States flag 
vessels. These 13 ships normally operate in domestic trades that 
involve Washington, Oregon, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, 
Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of providing equity to the 
United States corporations that own and operate these 13 vessels, my 
bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic operations 
and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their 
international income--so they receive the same treatment as other 
United States flag international operators. I stress that, under my 
bill, these ships will continue to pay the normal 35 percent United 
States corporate tax rate on their domestic income.
  Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a 
necessary step toward providing tax equity between United States flag 
and foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax committees of the 
Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and 
approval.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 58

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

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

       (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 1355 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions and 
     special rules) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Effect of Operating a Qualifying Vessel in the Dual 
     United States Domestic and Foreign Trades.--For purposes of 
     this subchapter--
       ``(1) an electing corporation shall be treated as 
     continuing to use a qualifying vessel in the United States 
     foreign trade during any period of use in the United States 
     domestic trade, and
       ``(2) gross income from such United States domestic trade 
     shall not be excluded under section 1357(a), but shall not be 
     taken into account for purposes of section 1353(b)(1)(B) or 
     for purposes of section 1356 in connection with the 
     application of section 1357 or 1358.''.
       (b) Regulatory Authority for Allocation of Credits, Income, 
     and Deductions.--Section 1358 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to allocation of credits, income, and 
     deductions) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``in accordance with this subsection'' in 
     subsection (c) and inserting ``to the extent provided in such 
     regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations consistent with the provisions of this subchapter 
     for the purpose of allocating gross income, deductions, and 
     credits between or among qualifying shipping activities and 
     other activities of a taxpayer.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1355(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     is amended by striking ``exclusively''.
       (2) Section 1355(b)(1)(B) of such Code is amended by 
     striking ``as a qualifying vessel'' and inserting ``in the 
     transportation of goods or passengers''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
       By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 59. A bill to amend title VII of the Public Health Service Act to 
make certain graduate programs in professional psychology eligible to 
participate in various health professions loan programs; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
   Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise again today to reintroduce 
legislation to modify Title VII of the U.S. Public Health Service Act 
in order to provide students enrolled in graduate psychology programs 
with the opportunity to participate in various health professions loan 
programs.
  Providing students enrolled in graduate psychology programs with 
eligibility for financial assistance in the form of loans, loan 
guarantees, and scholarships will facilitate a much-needed infusion of 
behavioral science expertise into our community of public health 
providers. There is a growing recognition of the valuable contribution 
being made by psychologists toward solving some of our Nation's most 
distressing problems.
  The participation of students from all backgrounds and clinical 
disciplines is vital to the success of health care training. The Title 
VII programs plays a significant role in providing financial support 
for the recruitment of minorities, women, and individuals from 
economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Minority therapists have an 
advantage in the provision of critical services to minority populations 
because often they can communicate with clients in their own language 
and cultural framework. Minority therapists are more likely to work in 
community settings where ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged 
individuals are most likely to seek care. It is critical that continued 
support be provided for the training of individuals who provide health 
care services to underserved communities.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 59

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Strengthen the Public Health 
     Service Act''.

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

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

     SEC. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Health Professions Data.--Section 792(a) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295k(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (b) Prohibition Against Discrimination on Basis of Sex.--
     Section 794 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295m) 
     is amended in the matter preceding paragraph (1) by striking 
     ``clinical'' and inserting ``professional''.
       (c) Definitions.--Section 799B(1)(B) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 295p(1)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``clinical'' each place the term appears and inserting 
     ``professional''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Schumer, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs. 
        Boxer):
  S. 60. A bill to prohibit the sale and counterfeiting of Presidential 
inaugural tickets; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Schumer, 
Snowe, and Boxer in introducing legislation to prohibit the selling and 
counterfeiting of tickets to the Presidential inaugural ceremony.
  The inauguration of the President of the United States is one of the 
most

[[Page 104]]

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

                                 S. 60

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

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

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

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

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

``515. Prohibition on sale and counterfeiting of inaugural tickets.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. 
        Harkin, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 61. A bill to amend title 11 of the United States Code with 
respect to modification of certain mortgages on principal residences, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as the 111th Congress begins, the most 
important item on our agenda is to help end the worst economic crisis 
America has faced since the Great Depression.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to develop 
and approve an economic turnaround package as quickly as possible.
  But even if Congress authorizes as much as $1 trillion in new 
Government spending over the next 2 years to stimulate the economy, if 
we don't address the origins of this crisis, I fear the impact of any 
recovery package will be dampened.
  This economic crisis began with the bubble that burst in the housing 
market. So we have to address that, first and foremost. Families need 
to be able to stay in their homes, and communities need to be 
stabilized before the economy can start to grow again.
  That's why, as my first bill in the new Congress, I am reintroducing 
the Helping Families Save Their Homes in Bankruptcy Act.

[[Page 105]]

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

[[Page 106]]



                                 S. 61

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Helping Families Save Their 
     Homes in Bankruptcy Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR RELIEF.

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

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

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

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO MODIFY CERTAIN MORTGAGES.

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

     SEC. 5. COMBATING EXCESSIVE FEES.

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

     SEC. 6. CONFIRMATION OF PLAN.

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

     SEC. 7. DISCHARGE.

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

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this 
     Act shall apply with respect to cases commenced under title 
     11 of the United States Code before, on, or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 63. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to 
improve access to advanced practice nurses and physician assistants 
under the Medicaid Program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today, I, again, introduce the Medicaid 
Advanced Practice Nurse and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2009. 
This legislation would change the Federal law to expand fee-for-service 
Medicaid to include direct payment for services provided by all nurse 
practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and physician assistants. It 
would ensure all nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and 
physician assistants are recognized as primary care case managers, and 
require Medicaid panels to include advanced practice nurses on their 
managed care panels.
  Advanced practice nurses are registered nurses who have attained 
additional expertise in the clinical management of health conditions. 
Typically, an advanced practice nurse holds a master's degree with 
didactic and clinical preparation beyond that of the registered nurse. 
They are employed in clinics, hospitals, and private practices. While 
there are many titles given to these advanced practice nurses, such as 
pediatric nurse practitioners, family nurse practitioners, certified 
nurse midwives, certified registered nurse anesthetists, and clinical 
nurse specialists, our current Medicaid law has not kept up with the 
multiple specialties and titles of these advanced practitioners, nor 
has it recognized the critical role physician assistants play in the 
delivery of primary care.
  I have been a long-time advocate of advanced practice nurses and 
their ability to extend health care services to our most rural and 
underserved communities. They have improved access to health care in 
Hawaii and throughout the United States by their willingness to 
practice in what some providers might see as undesirable locations--
extremely rural, frontier, or

[[Page 107]]

urban areas. This legislation ensures they are recognized and 
reimbursed for providing the necessary health care services patients 
need, and it gives those patients the choice of selecting advanced 
practice nurses and physician assistants as their primary care 
providers.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 63

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Medicaid Advanced Practice 
     Nurses and Physician Assistants Access Act of 2009''.

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

       (a) Primary Care Case Management.--Section 1905(t)(2) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(t)(2)) is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
       ``(B) A nurse practitioner (as defined in section 
     1861(aa)(5)(A)).
       ``(C) A certified nurse-midwife (as defined in section 
     1861(gg)).
       ``(D) A physician assistant (as defined in section 
     1861(aa)(5)(A)).''.
       (b) Fee-for-Service Program.--Section 1905(a)(21) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(21)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(21)'';
       (2) by striking ``services furnished by a certified 
     pediatric nurse practitioner or certified family nurse 
     practitioner (as defined by the Secretary) which the 
     certified pediatric nurse practitioner or certified family 
     nurse practitioner'' and inserting ``services furnished by a 
     nurse practitioner (as defined in section 1861(aa)(5)(A)) or 
     by a clinical nurse specialist (as defined in section 
     1861(aa)(5)(B)) which the nurse practitioner or clinical 
     nurse specialist'';
       (3) by striking ``the certified pediatric nurse 
     practitioner or certified family nurse practitioner'' and 
     inserting ``the nurse practitioner or clinical nurse 
     specialist''; and
       (4) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``and (B) services furnished by a physician 
     assistant (as defined in section 1861(aa)(5)) with the 
     supervision of a physician which the physician assistant is 
     legally authorized to perform under State law''.
       (c) Including in Mix of Service Providers Under Medicaid 
     Managed Care Organizations.--Section 1932(b)(5)(B) of such 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1396u-2(b)(5)(B)) is amended by inserting ``, 
     with such mix including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse 
     specialists, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, 
     and certified registered nurse anesthetists (as defined in 
     section 1861(bb)(2))'' after ``services''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to items and services furnished in calendar 
     quarters beginning on or after 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, without regard to whether or not final 
     regulations to carry out such amendments have been 
     promulgated by such date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 65. A bill to provide relief to the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada 
for settlement of certain claims against the United States; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, almost 14 years ago, I stood before you to 
introduce a bill ``to provide an opportunity for the Pottawatomi Nation 
in Canada to have the merits of their claims against the United States 
determined by the United States Court of Federal Claims.''
  That bill was introduced as Senate Resolution 223, which referred the 
Pottawatomi's claim to the Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Federal 
Claims and required the Chief Judge to report back to the Senate and 
provide sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable 
the Congress to determine whether the claim of the Pottawatomi Nation 
in Canada is legal or equitable in nature, and the amount of damages, 
if any, which may be legally or equitably due from the United States.
  Nine years ago, the Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims 
reported back that the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada has a legitimate 
and credible legal claim. By settlement stipulation, the United States 
has taken the position that it would be ``fair, just and equitable'' to 
settle the claims of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada for the sum of 
$1,830,000. This settlement amount was reached by the parties after 7 
years of extensive, fact-intensive litigation. Independently, the Court 
of Federal Claims concluded that the settlement amount is ``not a 
gratuity'' and that the ``settlement was predicated on a credible legal 
claim.'' Pottawatomi Nation in Canada, et al. v. United States, Cong. 
Ref. 94-1037X at 28 (Ct. Fed. Cl., September 15, 2000) (Report of 
Hearing Officer).
  The bill I introduce today is to authorize the payment of those funds 
that the United States has concluded would be ``fair, just and 
equitable'' to satisfy this legal claim from amounts appropriated under 
section 1304 of title 31 of the United States Code. If enacted, this 
bill will finally achieve a measure of justice for a tribal nation that 
has for far too long been denied.
  For the information of our colleagues, this is the historical 
background that informs the underlying legal claim of the Canadian 
Pottawatomi.
  The members of the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada are one of the 
descendant groups--successors-in-interest--of the historical 
Pottawatomi Nation and their claim originates in the latter part of the 
18th century. The historical Pottawatomi Nation was aboriginal to the 
United States. They occupied and possessed a vast expanse in what is 
now the States of Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin. 
From 1795 to 1833, the United States annexed most of the traditional 
land of the Pottawatomi Nation through a series of treaties of 
cession--many of these cessions were made under extreme duress and the 
threat of military action. In exchange, the Pottawatomis were 
repeatedly made promises that the remainder of their lands would be 
secure and, in addition, that the United States would pay certain 
annuities to the Pottawatomi.
  In 1829, the United States formally adopted a Federal policy of 
removal--an effort to remove all Indian tribes from their traditional 
lands east of the Mississippi River to the west. As part of that 
effort, the government increasingly pressured the Pottawatomis to cede 
the remainder of their traditional lands--some 5 million acres in and 
around the city of Chicago and remove themselves west. For years, the 
Pottawatomis steadfastly refused to cede the remainder of their tribal 
territory. Then in 1833, the United States, pressed by settlers seeking 
more land, sent a Treaty Commission to the Pottawatomi with orders to 
extract a cession of the remaining lands. The Treaty Commissioners 
spent 2 weeks using extraordinarily coercive tactics--including threats 
of war--in an attempt to get the Pottawatomis to agree to cede their 
territory. Finally, those Pottawatomis who were present relented and on 
September 26, 1933, they ceded their remaining tribal estate through 
what would be known as the Treaty of Chicago. Seventy-seven members of 
the Pottawatomi Nation signed the Treaty of Chicago. Members of the 
``Wisconsin Band'' were not present and did not assent to the cession.
  In exchange for their land, the Treaty of Chicago provided that the 
United States would give to the Pottawatomis 5 million acres of 
comparable land in what is now Missouri. The Pottawatomi were familiar 
with the Missouri land, aware that it was similar to their homeland. 
But the Senate refused to ratify that negotiated agreement and 
unilaterally switched the land to 5 million acres in Iowa. The Treaty 
Commissioners were sent back to acquire Pottawatomi assent to the Iowa 
land. All but seven of the original 77 signatories refused to accept 
the change even with promises that if they were dissatisfied ``justice 
would be done.'' Treaty of Chicago, as amended, Article 4. 
Nevertheless, the Treaty of Chicago was ratified as amended by the 
Senate in 1834. Subsequently, the Pottawatomis sent a delegation to 
evaluate the land in Iowa. The delegation reported back that the land 
was ``not fit for snakes to live on.''
  While some Pottawatomis removed westward, many of the Pottawatomis--
particularly the Wisconsin Band, whose leaders never agreed to the 
Treaty--refused to do so. By 1836, the United States began to 
forcefully remove

[[Page 108]]

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

                                 S. 65

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

     SECTION 1. SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN CLAIMS.

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

[[Page 109]]

       (2) be included in the report of the Chief Judge of the 
     United States Court of Federal Claims regarding Congressional 
     Reference No. 94-1037X, submitted to the Senate on January 4, 
     2001, in accordance with sections 1492 and 2509 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       (c) Full Satisfaction of Claims.--The payment under 
     subsection (a) shall be in full satisfaction of all claims of 
     the Pottawatomi Nation in Canada against the United States 
     that are referred to or described in the Stipulation for 
     Recommendation of Settlement.
       (d) Nonapplicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of law, the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) does not apply to the payment 
     under subsection (a).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 66. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit former 
members of the Armed Forces who have a service-connected disability 
rated as total to travel on military aircraft in the same manner and to 
the same extent as retired members of the Armed Forces are entitled to 
travel on such aircraft; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a bill which is 
of great importance to a group of patriotic Americans. This legislation 
is designed to extend space-available travel privileges on military 
aircraft to those who have been totally disabled in the service of our 
country.
  Currently, retired members of the Armed Services are permitted to 
travel on a space-available basis on non-scheduled military flights 
within the continental United States, and on scheduled overseas flights 
operated by the Military Airlift Command. My bill would provide the 
same benefits for veterans with 100 percent service-connected 
disabilities.
  We owe these heroic men and women who have given so much to our 
country a debt of gratitude. Of course, we can never repay them for the 
sacrifices they have made on behalf of our Nation, but we can surely 
try to make their lives more pleasant and fulfilling. One way in which 
we can help is to extend military travel privileges to these 
distinguished American veterans. I have received numerous letters from 
all over the country attesting to the importance attached to this issue 
by veterans. Therefore, I ask that my colleagues show their concern and 
join me in saying ``thank you'' by supporting this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 66

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

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

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

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

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

``1060c. Travel on military aircraft: certain disabled former members 
              of the armed forces.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 67. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize 
certain disabled former prisoners of war to use Department of Defense 
commissary and exchange stores; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation to 
enable those former prisoners of war who have been separated honorably 
from their respective services and who have been rated as having a 30 
percent service-connected disability to have the use of both the 
military commissary and post exchange privileges. While I realize it is 
impossible to adequately compensate one who has endured long periods of 
incarceration at the hands of our Nation's enemies, I do feel this 
gesture is both meaningful and important to those concerned because it 
serves as a reminder that our Nation has not forgotten their 
sacrifices.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 67

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

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

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

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

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

``1064a. Use of commissary and exchange stores: certain disabled former 
              prisoners of war.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 68. A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to determine the 
validity of the claims of certain Filipinos that they performed 
military service on behalf of the United States during World War II; to 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am reintroducing legislation today that 
would direct the Secretary of the Army to determine whether certain 
nationals of the Philippine Islands performed military service on 
behalf of the United States during World War II.
  Our Filipino veterans fought side by side with Americans and 
sacrificed their lives on behalf of the United States. This legislation 
would confirm the validity of their claims and further allow qualified 
individuals the opportunity to apply for military and veterans benefits 
that, I believe, they are entitled to. As this population becomes 
older, it is important for our nation to extend its firm commitment to 
the Filipino veterans and their families who participated in making us 
the great Nation that we are today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 68

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

     SECTION 1. DETERMINATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY.

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

[[Page 110]]

     service referred to in subsection (a)) that is available to 
     the Secretary, including information and evidence submitted 
     by the applicant, if any.

     SEC. 2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.

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

     SEC. 3. APPLICATIONS BY SURVIVORS.

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

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION PERIOD.

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

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

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

     SEC. 6. REGULATIONS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 8. DEFINITION.

       In this Act, the term ``World War II'' means the period 
     beginning on December 7, 1941, and ending on December 31, 
     1946.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Carper, Ms. 
        Murkowski, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 69. A bill to establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the 
study of a prior Commission to investigate and determine facts and 
circumstances surrounding the relocation, internment, and deportation 
to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 
1941 through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the 
United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the 
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of 
Japanese Descent Act.
  The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast 
and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact-
finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That 
study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill 
for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially 
know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from 
their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to 
the U.S., and interned in American camps.
  This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm 
across international borders, into a community that did not pose an 
immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of 
passports or any other proof of citizenship, for exchange with 
Americans with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our Government, 
with the help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons 
of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 
2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., 
where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for 
prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a 
foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' 
immigration to Latin America.
  Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of 
Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin 
Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner 
exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and 
subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. 
Others remained in the U.S., because their country of origin in Latin 
America refused their re-entry, because they were unable to present a 
passport.
  When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin 
Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a 
part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories 
of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps 
in our country.
  The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the 
Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 
1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. 
Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled 
upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, 
intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. 
Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was 
unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to 
include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.
  I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and 
Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would 
establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 
Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts 
surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin 
Americans subject to a program of relocation, internment, and 
deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would 
give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain 
and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 69

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Commission on Wartime 
     Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese 
     Descent Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Based on a preliminary study published in 
     December 1982 by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and 
     Internment of Civilians, Congress finds the following:
       (1) During World War II, the United States--
       (A) expanded its internment program and national security 
     investigations to conduct the program and investigations in 
     Latin America; and
       (B) financed relocation to the United States, and 
     internment, of approximately 2,300 Latin Americans of 
     Japanese descent, for the purpose of exchanging the Latin 
     Americans of Japanese descent for United States citizens held 
     by Axis countries.
       (2) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of 
     Japanese descent from 13 Latin American countries were held 
     in the custody of the Department of State in internment camps 
     operated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 
     1941 through 1948.
       (3) Those men, women, and children either--
       (A) were arrested without a warrant, hearing, or indictment 
     by local police, and sent to the United States for 
     internment; or
       (B) in some cases involving women and children, voluntarily 
     entered internment camps to remain with their arrested 
     husbands, fathers, and other male relatives.
       (4) Passports held by individuals who were Latin Americans 
     of Japanese descent were routinely confiscated before the 
     individuals arrived in the United States, and the Department 
     of State ordered United States consuls in Latin American 
     countries to refuse to issue visas to the individuals prior 
     to departure.
       (5) Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American 
     internees of Japanese descent were considered to be and 
     treated as illegal entrants by the Immigration and 
     Naturalization Service. Thus, the internees became illegal 
     aliens in United States custody who were subject to 
     deportation proceedings for immediate removal from the United 
     States. In some cases, Latin American internees of Japanese 
     descent were deported to Axis countries to enable the United 
     States to conduct prisoner exchanges.
       (6) Approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of 
     Japanese descent were relocated from their homes in Latin 
     America, detained

[[Page 111]]

     in internment camps in the United States, and in some cases, 
     deported to Axis countries to enable the United States to 
     conduct prisoner exchanges.
       (7) The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of 
     Civilians studied Federal actions conducted pursuant to 
     Executive Order 9066 (relating to authorizing the Secretary 
     of War to prescribe military areas). Although the United 
     States program of interning Latin Americans of Japanese 
     descent was not conducted pursuant to Executive Order 9066, 
     an examination of that extraordinary program is necessary to 
     establish a complete account of Federal actions to detain and 
     intern civilians of enemy or foreign nationality, 
     particularly of Japanese descent. Although historical 
     documents relating to the program exist in distant archives, 
     the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of 
     Civilians did not research those documents.
       (8) Latin American internees of Japanese descent were a 
     group not covered by the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (50 
     U.S.C. App. 1989b et seq.), which formally apologized and 
     provided compensation payments to former Japanese Americans 
     interned pursuant to Executive Order 9066.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish a 
     fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the Commission 
     on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to 
     investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding 
     the relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries 
     of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from December 1941 
     through February 1948, and the impact of those actions by the 
     United States, and to recommend appropriate remedies, if any, 
     based on preliminary findings by the original Commission and 
     new discoveries.

     SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION.

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

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

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

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

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

     SEC. 6. PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government 
     shall be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent 
     of the annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of 
     the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate the employment of such personnel as may 
     be necessary to enable the Commission to perform its duties.
       (2) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the personnel without regard to 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, relating to classification of positions 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay 
     for the personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level V 
     of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (d) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (e) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (f) Other Administrative Matters.--The Commission may--
       (1) enter into agreements with the Administrator of General 
     Services to procure necessary financial and administrative 
     services;
       (2) enter into contracts to procure supplies, services, and 
     property; and
       (3) enter into contracts with Federal, State, or local 
     agencies, or private institutions or organizations, for the 
     conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports, 
     and other activities necessary to enable the Commission to 
     perform its duties.

[[Page 112]]



     SEC. 7. TERMINATION.

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

     SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated 
     such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
       (b) Availability.--Any sums appropriated under the 
     authorization contained in this section shall remain 
     available, without fiscal year limitation, until expended.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 70. A bill to restore the traditional day of observance of 
Memorial Day, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, in our effort to accommodate many 
Americans by making Memorial Day the last Monday in May, we have lost 
sight of the significance of this day to our Nation. My bill would 
restore Memorial Day to May 30 and authorize our flag to fly at half 
mast on that day. In addition, this legislation would authorize the 
President to issue a proclamation designating Memorial Day and Veterans 
Day as days for prayer and ceremonies. This legislation would help 
restore the recognition our veterans deserve for the sacrifices they 
have made on behalf of our Nation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 70

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

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

       (a) Designation of Legal Public Holiday.--Section 6103(a) 
     of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``Memorial Day, May 30.''.
       (b) Observances and Ceremonies.--Section 116 of title 36, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``The last Monday in 
     May'' and inserting ``May 30''; and
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (B) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
       ``(4) calling on the people of the United States to observe 
     Memorial Day as a day of ceremonies to show respect for 
     United States veterans of wars and other military conflicts; 
     and''.
       (c) Display of Flag.--Section 6(d) of title 4, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``the last Monday in 
     May;'' and inserting ``May 30;''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 72. A bill to reauthorize the programs of the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development for housing assistance for Native 
Hawaiians; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill to reauthorize 
Title VIII of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-
Determination Act. Senator Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure. 
Title VIII provides authority for the appropriation of funds for the 
construction of low-income housing for native Hawaiians and further 
provides authority for access to loan guarantees associated with the 
construction of housing to serve native Hawaiians.
  Three studies have documented the acute housing needs of native 
Hawaiians--which include the highest rates of overcrowding and 
homelessness in the State of Hawaii. Those same studies indicate that 
inadequate housing rates for Native Hawaiians are amongst the highest 
in the Nation.
  The reauthorization of Title VIII will support the continuation of 
efforts to assure that the native people of Hawaii may one day have 
access to housing opportunities that are comparable to those now 
enjoyed by other Americans.
  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 72

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Hawaiian Homeownership 
     Opportunity Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR HOUSING 
                   ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 3. LOAN GUARANTEES FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN HOUSING.

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

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

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

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

       (B) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``or housing entity'' 
     and inserting ``, housing entity, or the Department of 
     Hawaiian Home Lands'';
       (4) in the first sentence of section 603 (25 U.S.C. 4193), 
     by striking ``or housing entity'' and inserting ``, housing 
     entity, or the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands''; and
       (5) in section 605(b) (25 U.S.C. 4195(b)), by striking 
     ``1997 through 2007'' and inserting ``2009 through 2013''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 73. A bill to establish a systematic mortgage modification program 
at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will limit foreclosures and stabilize home values through Federal 
loan guarantees and standardized procedures for mortgage workout 
agreements.
  The Systematic Foreclosure Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act 
would implement the foreclosure prevention plan developed by Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, Chairman Sheila Bair.
  There are three key components of this legislation.
  Servicers would be incentivized to modify mortgages, receiving $1,000 
to help cover the costs of each loan modification; the Federal 
Government would share up to 50 percent of any loss should the 
homeowner default after receiving a modification; and participating 
servicers would be required to systematically review and modify all 
suitable loans in their portfolios, applying a standard calculation to 
help expedite loan modifications as cost-effectively as possible.
  The FDIC estimates that roughly 2.2 million home loans, worth $444 
billion, could be modified under this plan, with 1.5 million 
foreclosures avoided.
  This legislation is projected to cost at least $25 billion; however, 
no additional spending is necessary.

[[Page 113]]

  This effort would be funded solely through the Troubled Assets Relief 
Program, TARP, to ensure that one of the core objectives of the bill, 
assistance to homeowners, is achieved.
  The foreclosure crisis and declining housing market remain at the 
epicenter of the economic challenges we face. And, although the Federal 
Government has taken unprecedented steps to address this problem, they 
have not been sufficient.
  Foreclosures are in the best interest of no one.
  Neighborhoods are decimated when homes are repossessed or left 
vacant, property values decline, local economies suffer, and crime 
often increases in blighted areas. Lenders must sustain the costs of 
foreclosure and are left with the burden of reselling properties in a 
distressed market.
  Homeowners are forced to give up on the American dream, and in some 
cases, tenants are forced out of homes they have been renting.
  To date, no TARP funds have been allocated by Treasury to directly 
address the foreclosure crisis.
  This must change, and it must change now.
  According to the FDIC, the pace of loan modifications continues to be 
very slow, with only 4 percent of troubled mortgages being modified to 
prevent foreclosures each month.
  A systematic approach is needed to expedite this process. The FDIC 
has implemented such a program successfully at Indy Mac Federal Bank, 
to reduce mortgage payments as low as 31 percent of monthly income.
  Loan modifications are based on interest rate reductions, extended 
loan terms, and principal forbearance.
  Unfortunately, banks that have received TARP funds have not been 
compelled to implement foreclosure reduction measures, and adequate 
incentive structures are not in place.
  This legislation provides prudent and cost-effective steps to improve 
assistance for struggling homeowners while also stabilizing the housing 
market.
  Foreclosures have had a devastating impact on our national economy, 
and the damage in my state has been particularly severe.
  California accounts for 1/3 of all foreclosure activity in the United 
States.
  Roughly 800,000 foreclosures will be filed in my state in 2008--a 70 
percent increase over 2007, when 481,392 foreclosures were filed in 
California.
  The foreclosure rate in California is the fourth highest in the 
Nation, with one foreclosure filing for every 218 households.
  In fact, 6 of the 10 metropolitan areas with the highest foreclosure 
rate in the Nation are in California.
  This includes: Merced--one out of every 76 homes in foreclosure; 
Modesto--one out of every 93 homes in foreclosure; Stockton--one out of 
every 94 homes in foreclosure; Riverside and San Bernardino--one out of 
every 107 homes in foreclosure; Bakersfield--one out of every 129 homes 
in foreclosure; and Vallejo and Fairfield--one out of every 133 homes 
in foreclosure.
  And, the situation is only getting worse.
  Property values have plummeted across California, making it difficult 
for many residents with adjustable rate mortgages to refinance into 
more stable, fixed rate products.
  One California community is in a special category of need: the city 
of Stockton, which has been referred to as ``America's foreclosure 
capital.''
  The foreclosure crisis has devastated this city of more than 260,000 
residents.
  Home foreclosures impact neighbors and reduce property values.
  But, the spillover effect in Stockton has been overwhelming.
  Jobs: The downturn in the construction industry has contributed to an 
unemployment rate of 11.9 percent in San Joaquin County, well above the 
national average.
  Schools: Foreclosures have displaced many students who were forced to 
change schools or leave the area when their families lost their homes.
  The student population of Stockton Unified School District, the 
biggest in San Joaquin County, was down about 200 students last year.
  Student displacement has a direct impact on school budgets, which are 
linked to student attendance.
  Most unfortunately, the emotional impact on children being forced to 
switch schools in the middle of the year can be tremendous.
  Public Services: High foreclosure rates have taken a toll on the city 
of Stockton's budget.
  Stockton now faces a nearly $25 million budget deficit.
  City officials have been forced to consider voluntary buyouts for 
municipal employees and mandatory 10-day furloughs to help close the 
gap.
  Because property values have fallen--due to foreclosures and 
increased inventory--Stockton also is facing lower tax revenues, which 
are depended upon to fill the city's $186 million general fund.
  This could have a dramatic effect on the city's emergency services; 
about 75 percent of Stockton's general fund pays for police and fire 
services.
  It is essential that we not forget communities such as Stockton. We 
cannot sit idly by and watch them fall through the cracks.
  This legislation is a much-needed step forward to provide relief to 
Main Street.
  Millions of Americans have lost their homes to foreclosure, and 
millions more are at risk of losing their homes in the coming months.
  Part of this problem was driven by abusive and predatory lending 
practices.
  Part of the problem can be attributed to lax underwriting standards 
and regulators who were asleep at the wheel.
  Part of this problem was due to individuals who made bad choices.
  But, this is a problem that now impacts--either directly or 
indirectly--all hard-working American families.
  These are significant challenges we face, and innovative solutions 
are required.
  This bill will serve as a companion to legislation introduced in the 
House by my colleague from California, Representative Maxine Waters.
  I look forward to working with her, and my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, to pass this important legislation as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 73

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Systematic Foreclosure 
     Prevention and Mortgage Modification Act''.

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

       (a) In General.--The Chairperson of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation shall establish a systematic 
     foreclosure prevention and mortgage modification program by--
       (1) paying servicers $1,000 to cover expenses for each loan 
     modified according to the required standards; and
       (2) sharing up to 50 percent of any losses incurred if a 
     modified loan should subsequently re-default.
       (b) Program Components.--The program established under 
     subsection (a) shall include the following components:
       (1) Eligible borrowers.--The program shall be limited to 
     loans secured by owner-occupied properties.
       (2) Exclusion for early payment default.--To promote 
     sustainable mortgages, government loss sharing shall be 
     available only after the borrower has made a minimum of 6 
     payments on the modified mortgage.
       (3) Standard net present value test.--In order to promote 
     consistency and simplicity in implementation and audit, a 
     standard test comparing the expected net present value of 
     modifying past due loans compared to the net present value of 
     foreclosing on them will be applied. Under this test, 
     standard assumptions shall be used to ensure that a 
     consistent standard for affordability is provided based on a 
     31 percent borrower mortgage debt-to-income ratio.
       (4) Systematic loan review by participating servicers.--
     Participating servicers shall be required to undertake a 
     systematic review of all of the loans under their management, 
     to subject each loan to a standard net present value test to 
     determine whether it is a suitable candidate for 
     modification, and to modify all loans that pass this test. 
     The penalty for failing to undertake such a systematic review 
     and to carry out modifications where they are justified would 
     be disqualification from further participation in

[[Page 114]]

     the program until such a systematic program was introduced.
       (5) Modifications.--Modifications may include any of the 
     following:
       (A) Reduction in interest rates and fees.
       (B) Forbearance of principal.
       (C) Extension of the term to maturity.
       (D) Other similar modifications.
       (6) Reduced loss share percentage for ``underwater 
     loans''.--For loan-to-value ratios above 100 percent, the 
     government loss share shall be progressively reduced from 50 
     percent to 20 percent as the current loan-to-value ratio 
     rises, except that loss sharing shall not be available if the 
     loan-to-value ratio of the first lien exceeds 150 percent.
       (7) Simplified loss share calculation.--In order to ensure 
     the administrative efficiency of this program, the 
     calculation of loss share basis would be as simple as 
     possible. In general terms, the calculation shall be based on 
     the difference between the net present value, as defined by 
     the Chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 
     of the modified loan and the amount of recoveries obtained in 
     a disposition by refinancing, short sale, or real estate 
     owned sale, net of disposal costs as estimated according to 
     industry standards. Interim modifications shall be allowed.
       (8) De minimis test.--To lower administrative costs, a de 
     minimis test shall be used to exclude from loss sharing any 
     modification that does not lower the monthly payment at least 
     10 percent.
       (9) 8-year limit on loss sharing payment.--The loss sharing 
     guarantee shall terminate at the end of the 8-year period 
     beginning on the date the modification was consummated.
       (c) Regulations.--The Corporation shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to implement this Act and 
     prevent evasions thereof.
       (d) Troubled Assets.--The costs incurred by the Federal 
     Government in carrying out the loan modification program 
     established under this section shall be covered out of the 
     funds made available to the Secretary of the Treasury under 
     section 118 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 
     2008.
       (e) Modifications to Program.--The Chairperson of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation may make any 
     modification to the program established under subsection (a) 
     that the Chairperson determines are appropriate for the 
     purpose of maximizing the number of foreclosures prevented.
       (f) Report.--Before the end of the 6-month period beginning 
     on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Chairperson of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shall submit a 
     progress report to the Congress containing such findings and 
     such recommendations for legislative or administrative action 
     as the Chairperson may determine to be appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. HUTCHISON (for herself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
        Cornyn, and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 74. A bill to provide permanent tax relief from the marriage 
penalty; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill to 
provide permanent tax relief from the marriage penalty--the most 
egregious, anti-family provision in the tax code. One of my highest 
priorities in the United States Senate has been to relieve American 
taxpayers of this punitive burden.
  We have made important strides to eliminate this unfair tax and 
provide marriage penalty relief by raising the standard deduction and 
enlarging the 15 percent tax bracket for married joint filers to twice 
that of single filers. Before these provisions were changed, 42 percent 
of married couples paid an average penalty of $1,400.
  Enacting marriage penalty relief was a giant step for tax fairness, 
but it may be fleeting. Even as married couples use the money they now 
save to put food on the table and clothes on their children, a tax 
increase looms in the future. Since the 2001 tax relief bill was 
restricted, the marriage penalty provisions will only be in effect 
through 2010. In 2011, marriage will again be a taxable event and a 
significant number of married couples will again pay more in taxes 
unless we act decisively. Given the challenges many families face in 
making ends meet, we must make sure we do not backtrack on this 
important reform.
  The benefits of marriage are well established, yet, without marriage 
penalty relief, the tax code provides a significant disincentive for 
people to walk down the aisle. Marriage is a fundamental institution in 
our society and should not be discouraged by the IRS. Children living 
in a married household are far less likely to live in poverty or to 
suffer from child abuse. Research indicates these children are also 
less likely to be depressed or have developmental problems. Scourges 
such as adolescent drug use are less common in married families, and 
married mothers are less likely to be victims of domestic violence.
  We should celebrate marriage, not penalize it. The bill I am offering 
would make marriage penalty relief permanent, because marriage should 
not be a taxable event. I call on the Senate to finish the job we 
started and make marriage penalty relief permanent today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 74

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Permanent Marriage Penalty 
     Relief Act of 2009''.

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

       Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
     Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions 
     of such Act) shall not apply to--
       (1) sections 301, 302, and 303 of such Act (relating to 
     marriage penalty relief), and
       (2) sections 101(b) and 101(c) of the Working Families Tax 
     Relief Act of 2004 (relating to marriage penalty relief in 
     the standard deduction and 15-percent income tax bracket, 
     respectively).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 75. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
require the use of generic drugs under the Medicare part D prescription 
drug program when available unless the brand name drug is determined to 
be medically necessary; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Generics First 
Act. This legislation requires the Federal Government's Medicare Part D 
prescription drug program to use generic drugs whenever available, 
unless a brand-name drug is determined to be medically necessary by a 
physician. Modeled after similar provisions in many state-administered 
Medicaid programs, this measure would reduce the high costs of the new 
prescription drug program and keep seniors from reaching the current 
coverage gap, or ``donut hole,'' by guiding beneficiaries toward cost-
saving generic drug alternatives.
  We know that the cost of prescription drugs is prohibitive, placing a 
financial strain on seniors, families, and businesses that are 
struggling to pay their health care bills. According to the National 
Bureau of Economic Research, spending on prescription drugs totaled 
$227.5 billion in 2007. People need help now and we must respond by 
expanding access to generic drugs. Generics, which on average cost 60 
percent less than their brand-name counterparts, are a big part of the 
solution to health care costs that are spiraling out of control.
  Generic drugs that are approved by the FDA must meet the same 
rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness as brand-name drugs. In 
addition to being safe and effective, the generic must have the same 
active ingredient or ingredients, be the same strength, and have the 
same labeling for the approved uses as the brand-name drug. In other 
words, generics perform the same medicinal purposes as their respective 
brand-name product.
  We know generic drugs have the potential to save seniors thousands of 
dollars and curb health spending for the Federal Government, employers, 
and families. Every year, more blockbuster drugs are coming off patent, 
setting up the potential for billions of dollars in savings. This 
legislation is just one part of a larger agenda I'm pushing to remove 
the obstacles that prevent generics from getting to market, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 75

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

[[Page 115]]



     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Generics First Act of 
     2009''.

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(aa) section 505(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act; or
       ``(bb) section 505(b)(2) of such Act and that has been 
     determined to be not therapeutically equivalent to any listed 
     drug.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to drugs dispensed on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 76. A bill to amend the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement 
Act to revise and extend that Act; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today, again, to introduce a bill 
to reauthorize the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act. Senator 
Akaka joins me in sponsoring this measure.
  The Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act was enacted into law 
in 1988, and has been reauthorized several times throughout the years.
  The Act provides authority for a range of programs and services 
designed to improve the health care status of the native people of 
Hawaii.
  With the enactment of the Native Hawaiian Health Care Improvement Act 
and the establishment of native Hawaiian health care systems on most of 
the islands that make up the State of Hawaii, we have witnessed 
significant improvements in the health status of native Hawaiians, but 
as the findings of unmet needs and health disparities set forth in this 
bill make clear, we still have a long way to go.
  For instance, native Hawaiians have the highest cancer mortality 
rates in the State of Hawaii--rates that are 22 percent higher than the 
rate for the total State male population and 64 percent higher than the 
rate for the total State female population. Nationally, native 
Hawaiians have the third highest mortality rate as a result of breast 
cancer.
  With respect to diabetes, in 2004 native Hawaiians had the highest 
mortality rate associated with diabetes in the State--a rate which is 
119 percent higher than the statewide rate for all racial groups.
  When it comes to heart disease, the mortality rate of native 
Hawaiians associated with heart disease is 86 percent higher than the 
rate for the entire State and the mortality rate for hypertension is 46 
percent higher than that for the entire State.
  These statistics on the health status of native Hawaiians are but a 
small part of the long list of data that makes clear that our objective 
of assuring that the native people of Hawaii attain some parity of good 
health comparable to that of the larger U.S. population has not yet 
been achieved.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 76

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Native Hawaiian Health Care 
     Improvement Reauthorization Act of 2009''.

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

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

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       ``(a) In General.--Congress finds that--
       ``(1) Native Hawaiians begin their story with the Kumulipo, 
     which details the creation and interrelationship of all 
     things, including the evolvement of Native Hawaiians as 
     healthy and well people;
       ``(2) Native Hawaiians--
       ``(A) are a distinct and unique indigenous people with a 
     historical continuity to the original inhabitants of the 
     Hawaiian archipelago within Ke Moananui, the Pacific Ocean; 
     and
       ``(B) have a distinct society that was first organized 
     almost 2,000 years ago;
       ``(3) the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians are 
     intrinsically tied to the deep feelings and attachment of 
     Native Hawaiians to their lands and seas;
       ``(4) the long-range economic and social changes in Hawai'i 
     over the 19th and early 20th centuries have been devastating 
     to the health and well-being of Native Hawaiians;
       ``(5) Native Hawaiians have never directly relinquished to 
     the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty 
     as a people or over their national territory, either through 
     their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum;
       ``(6) the Native Hawaiian people are determined to 
     preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations, in 
     accordance with their own spiritual and traditional beliefs, 
     their customs, practices, language, social institutions, 
     ancestral territory, and cultural identity;
       ``(7) in referring to themselves, Native Hawaiians use the 
     term `Kanaka Maoli', a term frequently used in the 19th 
     century to describe the native people of Hawai'i;
       ``(8) the constitution and statutes of the State of 
     Hawai'i--
       ``(A) acknowledge the distinct land rights of Native 
     Hawaiian people as beneficiaries of the public lands trust; 
     and
       ``(B) reaffirm and protect the unique right of the Native 
     Hawaiian people to practice and perpetuate their cultural and 
     religious customs, beliefs, practices, and language;
       ``(9) at the time of the arrival of the first nonindigenous 
     people in Hawai'i in 1778, the Native Hawaiian people lived 
     in a highly organized, self-sufficient, subsistence social 
     system based on communal land tenure with a sophisticated 
     language, culture, and religion;
       ``(10) a unified monarchical government of the Hawaiian 
     Islands was established in 1810 under Kamehameha I, the first 
     King of Hawai'i;
       ``(11) throughout the 19th century until 1893, the United 
     States--
       ``(A) recognized the independence of the Hawaiian Nation;
       ``(B) extended full and complete diplomatic recognition to 
     the Hawaiian Government; and
       ``(C) entered into treaties and conventions with the 
     Hawaiian monarchs to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 
     1842, 1849, 1875, and 1887;
       ``(12) in 1893, John L. Stevens, the United States Minister 
     assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawai'i, 
     conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the 
     Kingdom, including citizens of the United States, to 
     overthrow the indigenous and lawful government of Hawai'i;
       ``(13) in pursuance of that conspiracy--
       ``(A) the United States Minister and the naval 
     representative of the United States caused armed forces of 
     the United States Navy to invade the sovereign Hawaiian 
     Nation in support of the overthrow of the indigenous and 
     lawful Government of Hawai'i; and
       ``(B) after that overthrow, the United States Minister 
     extended diplomatic recognition of a provisional government 
     formed by the conspirators without the consent of the native 
     people of Hawai'i or the lawful Government of Hawai'i, in 
     violation of--

[[Page 116]]

       ``(i) treaties between the Government of Hawai'i and the 
     United States; and
       ``(ii) international law;
       ``(14) in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, 
     President Grover Cleveland--
       ``(A) reported fully and accurately on those illegal 
     actions;
       ``(B) acknowledged that by those acts, described by the 
     President as acts of war, the government of a peaceful and 
     friendly people was overthrown; and
       ``(C) concluded that a `substantial wrong has thus been 
     done which a due regard for our national character as well as 
     the rights of the injured people required that we should 
     endeavor to repair';
       ``(15) Queen Lili`uokalani, the lawful monarch of Hawai'i, 
     and the Hawaiian Patriotic League, representing the 
     aboriginal citizens of Hawai'i, promptly petitioned the 
     United States for redress of those wrongs and restoration of 
     the indigenous government of the Hawaiian nation, but no 
     action was taken on that petition;
       ``(16) in 1993, Congress enacted Public Law 103-150 (107 
     Stat. 1510), in which Congress--
       ``(A) acknowledged the significance of those events; and
       ``(B) apologized to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the 
     people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom 
     of Hawai'i with the participation of agents and citizens of 
     the United States, and the resulting deprivation of the 
     rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
       ``(17) between 1897 and 1898, when the total Native 
     Hawaiian population in Hawai'i was less than 40,000, more 
     than 38,000 Native Hawaiians signed petitions (commonly known 
     as `Ku'e Petitions') protesting annexation by the United 
     States and requesting restoration of the monarchy;
       ``(18) despite Native Hawaiian protests, in 1898, the 
     United States--
       ``(A) annexed Hawai'i through Resolution No. 55 (commonly 
     known as the `Newlands Resolution') (30 Stat. 750), without 
     the consent of, or compensation to, the indigenous people of 
     Hawai'i or the sovereign government of those people; and
       ``(B) denied those people the mechanism for expression of 
     their inherent sovereignty through self-government and self-
     determination of their lands and ocean resources;
       ``(19) through the Newlands Resolution and the Act of April 
     30, 1900 (commonly known as the `1900 Organic Act') (31 Stat. 
     141, chapter 339), the United States--
       ``(A) received 1,750,000 acres of land formerly owned by 
     the Crown and Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom; and
       ``(B) exempted the land from then-existing public land laws 
     of the United States by mandating that the revenue and 
     proceeds from that land be `used solely for the benefit of 
     the inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands for education and 
     other public purposes', thereby establishing a special trust 
     relationship between the United States and the inhabitants of 
     Hawai'i;
       ``(20) in 1921, Congress enacted the Hawaiian Homes 
     Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42), which--
       ``(A) designated 200,000 acres of the ceded public land for 
     exclusive homesteading by Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(B) affirmed the trust relationship between the United 
     States and Native Hawaiians, as expressed by Secretary of the 
     Interior Franklin K. Lane, who was cited in the Committee 
     Report of the Committee on Territories of the House of 
     Representatives as stating, `One thing that impressed me . . 
     . was the fact that the natives of the islands . . . for whom 
     in a sense we are trustees, are falling off rapidly in 
     numbers and many of them are in poverty.';
       ``(21) in 1938, Congress again acknowledged the unique 
     status of the Native Hawaiian people by including in the Act 
     of June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 781), a provision--
       ``(A) to lease land within the extension to Native 
     Hawaiians; and
       ``(B) to permit fishing in the area `only by native 
     Hawaiian residents of said area or of adjacent villages and 
     by visitors under their guidance';
       ``(22) under the Act of March 18, 1959 (48 U.S.C. prec. 491 
     note; 73 Stat. 4), the United States--
       ``(A) transferred responsibility for the administration of 
     the Hawaiian home lands to the State; but
       ``(B) reaffirmed the trust relationship that existed 
     between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people by 
     retaining the exclusive power to enforce the trust, including 
     the power to approve land exchanges and legislative 
     amendments affecting the rights of beneficiaries under that 
     Act;
       ``(23) under the Act referred to in paragraph (22), the 
     United States--
       ``(A) transferred responsibility for administration over 
     portions of the ceded public lands trust not retained by the 
     United States to the State; but
       ``(B) reaffirmed the trust relationship that existed 
     between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people by 
     retaining the legal responsibility of the State for the 
     betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians under 
     section 5(f) of that Act (73 Stat. 6);
       ``(24) in 1978, the people of Hawai'i--
       ``(A) amended the constitution of Hawai'i to establish the 
     Office of Hawaiian Affairs; and
       ``(B) assigned to that Office the authority--
       ``(i) to accept and hold in trust for the Native Hawaiian 
     people real and personal property transferred from any 
     source;
       ``(ii) to receive payments from the State owed to the 
     Native Hawaiian people in satisfaction of the pro rata share 
     of the proceeds of the public land trust established by 
     section 5(f) of the Act of March 18, 1959 (48 U.S.C. prec. 
     491 note; 73 Stat. 6);
       ``(iii) to act as the lead State agency for matters 
     affecting the Native Hawaiian people; and
       ``(iv) to formulate policy on affairs relating to the 
     Native Hawaiian people;
       ``(25) the authority of Congress under the Constitution to 
     legislate in matters affecting the aboriginal or indigenous 
     people of the United States includes the authority to 
     legislate in matters affecting the native people of Alaska 
     and Hawai'i;
       ``(26) the United States has recognized the authority of 
     the Native Hawaiian people to continue to work toward an 
     appropriate form of sovereignty, as defined by the Native 
     Hawaiian people in provisions set forth in legislation 
     returning the Hawaiian Island of Kaho`olawe to custodial 
     management by the State in 1994;
       ``(27) in furtherance of the trust responsibility for the 
     betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians, the United 
     States has established a program for the provision of 
     comprehensive health promotion and disease prevention 
     services to maintain and improve the health status of the 
     Hawaiian people;
       ``(28) that program is conducted by the Native Hawaiian 
     Health Care Systems and Papa Ola Lokahi;
       ``(29) health initiatives implemented by those and other 
     health institutions and agencies using Federal assistance 
     have been responsible for reducing the century-old morbidity 
     and mortality rates of Native Hawaiian people by--
       ``(A) providing comprehensive disease prevention;
       ``(B) providing health promotion activities; and
       ``(C) increasing the number of Native Hawaiians in the 
     health and allied health professions;
       ``(30) those accomplishments have been achieved through 
     implementation of--
       ``(A) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (Public 
     Law 100-579); and
       ``(B) the reauthorization of that Act under section 9168 of 
     the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public 
     Law 102-396; 106 Stat. 1948);
       ``(31) the historical and unique legal relationship between 
     the United States and Native Hawaiians has been consistently 
     recognized and affirmed by Congress through the enactment of 
     more than 160 Federal laws that extend to the Native Hawaiian 
     people the same rights and privileges accorded to American 
     Indian, Alaska Native, Eskimo, and Aleut communities, 
     including--
       ``(A) the Native American Programs Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     2991 et seq.);
       ``(B) the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1996);
       ``(C) the National Museum of the American Indian Act (20 
     U.S.C. 80q et seq.); and
       ``(D) the Native American Graves Protection and 
     Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.);
       ``(32) the United States has recognized and reaffirmed the 
     trust relationship to the Native Hawaiian people through 
     legislation that authorizes the provision of services to 
     Native Hawaiians, specifically--
       ``(A) the Older Americans Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3001 et 
     seq.);
       ``(B) the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of 
     Rights Act Amendments of 1987 (42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq.);
       ``(C) the Veterans' Benefits and Services Act of 1988 
     (Public Law 100-322);
       ``(D) the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 701 et 
     seq.);
       ``(E) the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act of 1988 (42 
     U.S.C. 11701 et seq.);
       ``(F) the Health Professions Reauthorization Act of 1988 
     (Public Law 100-607; 102 Stat. 3122);
       ``(G) the Nursing Shortage Reduction and Education 
     Extension Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-607; 102 Stat. 3153);
       ``(H) the Handicapped Programs Technical Amendments Act of 
     1988 (Public Law 100-630);
       ``(I) the Indian Health Care Amendments of 1988 (Public Law 
     100-713); and
       ``(J) the Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act of 
     1990 (Public Law 101-527);
       ``(33) the United States has affirmed that historical and 
     unique legal relationship to the Hawaiian people by 
     authorizing the provision of services to Native Hawaiians to 
     address problems of alcohol and drug abuse under the Anti-
     Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (21 U.S.C. 801 note; Public Law 99-
     570);
       ``(34) in addition, the United States--
       ``(A) has recognized that Native Hawaiians, as aboriginal, 
     indigenous, native people of Hawai'i, are a unique population 
     group in Hawai'i and in the continental United States; and
       ``(B) has so declared in--
       ``(i) the documents of the Office of Management and Budget 
     entitled--

       ``(I) `Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and 
     Presenting Federal Data on

[[Page 117]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 118]]

       ``(ii) perinatal conditions accounted for 38 percent of all 
     Native Hawaiian deaths in that age group;
       ``(iii) Native Hawaiian infant mortality rates (9.8 per 
     1,000 live births) are--

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

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

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

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

       ``(iii) Native Hawaiians have the highest prevalence of 
     binge drinking of 19.9 percent, which is 21 percent higher 
     than the prevalence for the total population of the State 
     (16.5 percent);
       ``(iv) the prevalence of heavy drinking among Native 
     Hawaiians (10.1 percent) is 36 percent higher than the 
     prevalence for the total population of the State (7.4 
     percent);
       ``(v)(I) in 2003, 17.2 percent of Native Hawaiians in grade 
     6, 45.1 percent of Naive Hawaiians in grade 8, 68.9 percent 
     of Native Hawaiians in grade 10, and 78.1 percent of Native 
     Hawaiians in grade 12 reported using alcohol at least once in 
     their lifetime, as compared to 13.2, 36.8, 59.1, and 72.5 
     percent, respectively, of all adolescents in the State; and
       ``(II) 62.1 percent Native Hawaiians in grade 12 reported 
     being drunk at least once, which is 20 percent higher than 
     the percentage for all adolescents in the State (51.6 
     percent);
       ``(vi) on entering grade 12, 60 percent of Native Hawaiian 
     adolescents reported having used illicit drugs, including 
     inhalants, at least once in their lifetime, as compared to--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 119]]

       ``(iii) 3 percent of individuals who earned doctorate 
     degrees;
       ``(iv) 7.9 percent of the credited student body at the 
     University of Hawai'i;
       ``(v) 0.4 percent of the instructional faculty at the 
     University of Hawai'i at Manoa; and
       ``(vi) 8.4 percent of the instructional faculty at the 
     University of Hawai'i Community Colleges.

     ``SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this Act:
       ``(1) Department.--The term `Department' means the 
     Department of Health and Human Services.
       ``(2) Disease prevention.--The term `disease prevention' 
     includes--
       ``(A) immunizations;
       ``(B) control of high blood pressure;
       ``(C) control of sexually transmittable diseases;
       ``(D) prevention and control of chronic diseases;
       ``(E) control of toxic agents;
       ``(F) occupational safety and health;
       ``(G) injury prevention;
       ``(H) fluoridation of water;
       ``(I) control of infectious agents; and
       ``(J) provision of mental health care.
       ``(3) Health promotion.--The term `health promotion' 
     includes--
       ``(A) pregnancy and infant care, including prevention of 
     fetal alcohol syndrome;
       ``(B) cessation of tobacco smoking;
       ``(C) reduction in the misuse of alcohol and harmful 
     illicit drugs;
       ``(D) improvement of nutrition;
       ``(E) improvement in physical fitness;
       ``(F) family planning;
       ``(G) control of stress;
       ``(H) reduction of major behavioral risk factors and 
     promotion of healthy lifestyle practices; and
       ``(I) integration of cultural approaches to health and 
     well-being (including traditional practices relating to the 
     atmosphere (lewa lani), land (`aina), water (wai), and ocean 
     (kai)).
       ``(4) Health service.--The term `health service' means--
       ``(A) service provided by a physician, physician's 
     assistant, nurse practitioner, nurse, dentist, or other 
     health professional;
       ``(B) a diagnostic laboratory or radiologic service;
       ``(C) a preventive health service (including a perinatal 
     service, well child service, family planning service, 
     nutrition service, home health service, sports medicine and 
     athletic training service, and, generally, any service 
     associated with enhanced health and wellness);
       ``(D) emergency medical service, including a service 
     provided by a first responder, emergency medical technician, 
     or mobile intensive care technician;
       ``(E) a transportation service required for adequate 
     patient care;
       ``(F) a preventive dental service;
       ``(G) a pharmaceutical and medicament service;
       ``(H) a mental health service, including a service provided 
     by a psychologist or social worker;
       ``(I) a genetic counseling service;
       ``(J) a health administration service, including a service 
     provided by a health program administrator;
       ``(K) a health research service, including a service 
     provided by an individual with an advanced degree in 
     medicine, nursing, psychology, social work, or any other 
     related health program;
       ``(L) an environmental health service, including a service 
     provided by an epidemiologist, public health official, 
     medical geographer, or medical anthropologist, or an 
     individual specializing in biological, chemical, or 
     environmental health determinants;
       ``(M) a primary care service that may lead to specialty or 
     tertiary care; and
       ``(N) a complementary healing practice, including a 
     practice performed by a traditional Native Hawaiian healer.
       ``(5) Native hawaiian.--The term `Native Hawaiian' means 
     any individual who is Kanaka Maoli (a descendant of the 
     aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised 
     sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State), as 
     evidenced by--
       ``(A) genealogical records;
       ``(B) kama`aina witness verification from Native Hawaiian 
     Kupuna (elders); or
       ``(C) birth records of the State or any other State or 
     territory of the United States.
       ``(6) Native hawaiian health care system.--The term `Native 
     Hawaiian health care system' means any of up to 8 entities in 
     the State that--
       ``(A) is organized under the laws of the State;
       ``(B) provides or arranges for the provision of health 
     services for Native Hawaiians in the State;
       ``(C) is a public or nonprofit private entity;
       ``(D) has Native Hawaiians significantly participating in 
     the planning, management, provision, monitoring, and 
     evaluation of health services;
       ``(E) addresses the health care needs of an island's Native 
     Hawaiian population; and
       ``(F) is recognized by Papa Ola Lokahi--
       ``(i) for the purpose of planning, conducting, or 
     administering programs, or portions of programs, authorized 
     by this Act for the benefit of Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(ii) as having the qualifications and the capacity to 
     provide the services and meet the requirements under--

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(ii) an action plan for carrying out those goals and 
     objectives.

[[Page 120]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) In General.--Papa Ola Lokahi--
       ``(1) shall be responsible for--
       ``(A) the coordination, implementation, and updating, as 
     appropriate, of the comprehensive health care master plan 
     under section 5;
       ``(B) the training and education of individuals providing 
     health services;
       ``(C) the identification of and research (including 
     behavioral, biomedical, epidemiological, and health service 
     research) into the diseases that are most prevalent among 
     Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(D) the development and maintenance of an institutional 
     review board for all research projects involving all aspects 
     of Native Hawaiian health, including behavioral, biomedical, 
     epidemiological, and health service research;
       ``(2) may receive special project funds (including research 
     endowments under section 736 of the Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 293)) made available for the purpose of--
       ``(A) research on the health status of Native Hawaiians; or
       ``(B) addressing the health care needs of Native Hawaiians; 
     and
       ``(3) shall serve as a clearinghouse for--
       ``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated 
     with the health status of Native Hawaiians;
       ``(B) the identification and research into diseases 
     affecting Native Hawaiians;
       ``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds, 
     research projects, and publications;
       ``(D) the collaboration of research in the area of Native 
     Hawaiian health; and
       ``(E) the timely dissemination of information pertinent to 
     the Native Hawaiian health care systems.
       ``(b) Consultation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary and the Secretary of each 
     other Federal agency shall--
       ``(A) consult with Papa Ola Lokahi; and
       ``(B) provide Papa Ola Lokahi and the Office of Hawaiian 
     Affairs, at least once annually, an accounting of funds and 
     services provided by the Secretary to assist in accomplishing 
     the purposes described in section 4.
       ``(2) Components of accounting.--The accounting under 
     paragraph (1)(B) shall include an identification of--
       ``(A) the amount of funds expended explicitly for and 
     benefitting Native Hawaiians;
       ``(B) the number of Native Hawaiians affected by those 
     funds;
       ``(C) the collaborations between the applicable Federal 
     agency and Native Hawaiian groups and organizations in the 
     expenditure of those funds; and
       ``(D) the amount of funds used for--
       ``(i) Federal administrative purposes; and
       ``(ii) the provision of direct services to Native 
     Hawaiians.
       ``(c) Fiscal Allocation and Coordination of Programs and 
     Services.--
       ``(1) Recommendations.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall provide 
     annual recommendations to the Secretary with respect to the 
     allocation of all amounts made available under this Act.
       ``(2) Coordination.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall, to the maximum 
     extent practicable, coordinate and assist the health care 
     programs and services provided to Native Hawaiians under this 
     Act and other Federal laws.
       ``(3) Representation on commission.--The Secretary, in 
     consultation with Papa Ola

[[Page 121]]

     Lokahi, shall make recommendations for Native Hawaiian 
     representation on the President's Advisory Commission on 
     Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders.
       ``(d) Technical Support.--Papa Ola Lokahi shall provide 
     statewide infrastructure to provide technical support and 
     coordination of training and technical assistance to--
       ``(1) the Native Hawaiian health care systems; and
       ``(2) the Native Hawaiian health centers.
       ``(e) Relationships With Other Agencies.--
       ``(1) Authority.--Papa Ola Lokahi may enter into agreements 
     or memoranda of understanding with relevant institutions, 
     agencies, or organizations that are capable of providing--
       ``(A) health-related resources or services to Native 
     Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian health care systems; or
       ``(B) resources or services for the implementation of the 
     national policy described in section 4.
       ``(2) Health care financing.--
       ``(A) Federal consultation.--
       ``(i) In general.--Before adopting any policy, rule, or 
     regulation that may affect the provision of services or 
     health insurance coverage for Native Hawaiians, a Federal 
     agency that provides health care financing and carries out 
     health care programs (including the Centers for Medicare and 
     Medicaid Services) shall consult with representatives of--

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

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

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

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 7. NATIVE HAWAIIAN HEALTH CARE.

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

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

       ``(a) In General.--In addition to any other grant or 
     contract under this Act, the Secretary may make grants to, or 
     enter into contracts with, Papa Ola Lokahi for--
       ``(1) coordination, implementation, and updating (as 
     appropriate) of the comprehensive health care master plan 
     developed under section 5;
       ``(2) training and education for providers of health 
     services;
       ``(3) identification of and research (including behavioral, 
     biomedical, epidemiologic, and health service research) into 
     the diseases that are most prevalent among Native Hawaiians;
       ``(4) a clearinghouse function for--
       ``(A) the collection and maintenance of data associated 
     with the health status of Native Hawaiians;

[[Page 122]]

       ``(B) the identification and research into diseases 
     affecting Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(C) the availability of Native Hawaiian project funds, 
     research projects, and publications;
       ``(5) the establishment and maintenance of an institutional 
     review board for all health-related research involving Native 
     Hawaiians;
       ``(6) the coordination of the health care programs and 
     services provided to Native Hawaiians; and
       ``(7) the administration of special project funds.
       ``(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out subsection (a) for each of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2014.

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

       ``(a) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in 
     any grant made or contract entered into under this Act such 
     terms and conditions as the Secretary considers necessary or 
     appropriate to ensure that the objectives of the grant or 
     contract are achieved.
       ``(b) Periodic Review.--The Secretary shall periodically 
     evaluate the performance of, and compliance with, grants and 
     contracts under this Act.
       ``(c) Administrative Requirements.--The Secretary shall not 
     make a grant or enter into a contract under this Act with an 
     entity unless the entity--
       ``(1) agrees to establish such procedures for fiscal 
     control and fund accounting as the Secretary determines are 
     necessary to ensure proper disbursement and accounting with 
     respect to the grant or contract;
       ``(2) agrees to ensure the confidentiality of records 
     maintained on individuals receiving health services under the 
     grant or contract;
       ``(3) with respect to providing health services to any 
     population of Native Hawaiians, a substantial portion of 
     which has a limited ability to speak the English language--
       ``(A) has developed and has the ability to carry out a 
     reasonable plan to provide health services under the grant or 
     contract through individuals who are able to communicate with 
     the population involved in the language and cultural context 
     that is most appropriate; and
       ``(B) has designated at least 1 individual who is fluent in 
     English and the appropriate language to assist in carrying 
     out the plan;
       ``(4) with respect to health services that are covered 
     under a program under title XVIII, XIX, or XXI of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) (including any State 
     plan), or under any other Federal health insurance plan--
       ``(A) if the entity will provide under the grant or 
     contract any of those health services directly--
       ``(i) has entered into a participation agreement under each 
     such plan; and
       ``(ii) is qualified to receive payments under the plan; and
       ``(B) if the entity will provide under the grant or 
     contract any of those health services through a contract with 
     an organization--
       ``(i) ensures that the organization has entered into a 
     participation agreement under each such plan; and
       ``(ii) ensures that the organization is qualified to 
     receive payments under the plan; and
       ``(5) agrees to submit to the Secretary and Papa Ola Lokahi 
     an annual report that--
       ``(A) describes the use and costs of health services 
     provided under the grant or contract (including the average 
     cost of health services per user); and
       ``(B) provides such other information as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(d) Contract Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Determination of noncompliance.--If, as a result of 
     evaluations conducted by the Secretary, the Secretary 
     determines that an entity has not complied with or 
     satisfactorily performed a contract entered into under 
     section 7, the Secretary shall, before renewing the 
     contract--
       ``(A) attempt to resolve the areas of noncompliance or 
     unsatisfactory performance; and
       ``(B) modify the contract to prevent future occurrences of 
     the noncompliance or unsatisfactory performance.
       ``(2) Nonrenewal.--If the Secretary determines that the 
     noncompliance or unsatisfactory performance described in 
     paragraph (1) with respect to an entity cannot be resolved 
     and prevented in the future, the Secretary--
       ``(A) shall not renew the contract with the entity; and
       ``(B) may enter into a contract under section 7 with 
     another entity referred to in section 7(a)(3) that provides 
     services to the same population of Native Hawaiians served by 
     the entity the contract with which was not renewed by reason 
     of this paragraph.
       ``(3) Consideration of results.--In determining whether to 
     renew a contract entered into with an entity under this Act, 
     the Secretary shall consider the results of the evaluations 
     conducted under this section.
       ``(4) Application of federal laws.--Each contract entered 
     into by the Secretary under this Act shall be in accordance 
     with all Federal contracting laws (including regulations), 
     except that, in the discretion of the Secretary, such a 
     contract may--
       ``(A) be negotiated without advertising; and
       ``(B) be exempted from subchapter III of chapter 31, United 
     States Code.
       ``(5) Payments.--A payment made under any contract entered 
     into under this Act--
       ``(A) may be made--
       ``(i) in advance;
       ``(ii) by means of reimbursement; or
       ``(iii) in installments; and
       ``(B) shall be made on such conditions as the Secretary 
     determines to be necessary to carry out this Act.
       ``(e) Report.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fiscal year during which an 
     entity receives or expends funds under a grant or contract 
     under this Act, the entity shall submit to the Secretary and 
     to Papa Ola Lokahi an annual report that describes--
       ``(A) the activities conducted by the entity under the 
     grant or contract;
       ``(B) the amounts and purposes for which Federal funds were 
     expended; and
       ``(C) such other information as the Secretary may request.
       ``(2) Audits.--The reports and records of any entity 
     concerning any grant or contract under this Act shall be 
     subject to audit by--
       ``(A) the Secretary;
       ``(B) the Inspector General of the Department of Health and 
     Human Services; and
       ``(C) the Comptroller General of the United States.
       ``(f) Annual Private Audit.--The Secretary shall allow as a 
     cost of any grant made or contract entered into under this 
     Act the cost of an annual private audit conducted by a 
     certified public accountant to carry out this section.

     ``SEC. 10. ASSIGNMENT OF PERSONNEL.

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

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

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

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

       ``(ii) Assignment.--The placement service for a scholarship 
     shall assign each Native Hawaiian scholarship recipient to 1 
     or more appropriate sites for service in accordance with 
     clause (i).
       ``(E) Counseling, retention, and support services.--The 
     provision of academic and personal counseling, retention and 
     other support services--
       ``(i) shall not be limited to scholarship recipients under 
     this section; and

[[Page 123]]

       ``(ii) shall be made available to recipients of other 
     scholarship and financial aid programs enrolled in 
     appropriate health professions training programs.
       ``(F) Financial assistance.--After consultation with Papa 
     Ola Lokahi, financial assistance may be provided to a 
     scholarship recipient during the period that the recipient is 
     fulfilling the service requirement of the recipient in any 
     of--
       ``(i) the Native Hawaiian health care systems; or
       ``(ii) the Native Hawaiians health centers.
       ``(G) Distance learning recipients.--A scholarship may be 
     provided to a Native Hawaiian who is enrolled in an 
     appropriate distance learning program offered by an 
     accredited educational institution.
       ``(2) Fellowships.--
       ``(A) In general.--Papa Ola Lokahi may provide financial 
     assistance in the form of a fellowship to a Native Hawaiian 
     health professional who is--
       ``(i) a Native Hawaiian community health representative, 
     outreach worker, or health program administrator in a 
     professional training program;
       ``(ii) a Native Hawaiian providing health services; or
       ``(iii) a Native Hawaiian enrolled in a certificated 
     program provided by traditional Native Hawaiian healers in 
     any of the traditional Native Hawaiian healing practices 
     (including lomi-lomi, la`au lapa`au, and ho`oponopono).
       ``(B) Types of assistance.--Assistance under subparagraph 
     (A) may include a stipend for, or reimbursement for costs 
     associated with, participation in a program described in that 
     paragraph.
       ``(3) Rights and benefits.--An individual who is a health 
     professional designated in section 338A of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254l) who receives a scholarship under 
     this subsection while fulfilling a service requirement under 
     that Act shall retain the same rights and benefits as members 
     of the National Health Service Corps during the period of 
     service.
       ``(4) No inclusion of assistance in gross income.--
     Financial assistance provided under this section shall be 
     considered to be qualified scholarships for the purpose of 
     section 117 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to 
     carry out subsections (a) and (c)(2) for each of fiscal years 
     2009 through 2014.

     ``SEC. 12. REPORT.

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

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

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 15. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

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

     ``SEC. 16. COMPLIANCE WITH BUDGET ACT.

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

     ``SEC. 17. SEVERABILITY.

       ``If any provision of this Act, or the application of any 
     such provision to any person or circumstance, is determined 
     by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the 
     remainder of this Act, and the application of the provision 
     to a person or circumstance other than that to which the 
     provision is held invalid, shall not be affected by that 
     holding.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 77. A bill to amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to 
provide for equal coverage of mental health services under the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my great hope that Congress will move 
this year to see that the successful, bipartisan State Children's 
Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, is allowed the opportunity to fulfill 
its promise to the low-income children of this country. For over 11 
years it has provided, along with Medicaid, the type of meaningful and 
affordable health insurance coverage that each and every American child 
deserves. Yet there is much work to be done to improve this program, 
and the reauthorization of SCHIP gives us the opportunity to expand 
these successful programs to many of the nine million uninsured 
children in the country today, starting with the 6 million that are 
already eligible for public programs but not yet enrolled.
  While expanding coverage to the uninsured is our top priority, it is 
equally important to ensure that the types of benefits offered to our 
Nation's children are quality services that are available when needed. 
Unfortunately, when it comes to mental health coverage, that is too 
often not the case today. Therefore, I am introducing today, along with 
Senator Snowe, the Children's Mental Health Parity Act which provides 
for equal coverage of mental health care for all children enrolled in 
the State Children's Health

[[Page 124]]

Insurance Plan, SCHIP. This was passed as part of the SCHIP 
reauthorization last year, but unfortunately the bill was vetoed by 
President Bush.
  I am encouraged by the passage of the Paul Wellstone and Pete 
Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in October 2008. 
It is now time to extend the same parity in mental health coverage to 
our children that we give to adults. Mental illness is a critical 
problem for the young people in this country today. The numbers are 
startling. Mental disorders affect about one in five American children 
and up to 9 percent of kids experience serious emotional disturbances 
that severely impact their functioning. Low-income children, those the 
SCHIP program is designed to cover, have the highest rates of mental 
health problems.
  Yet the sad reality is that an estimated \2/3\ of all young people 
struggling with mental health disorders do not receive the care they 
need. We are failing our children when we do not provide appropriate 
treatment of mental health disorders. The consequences of this failure 
could not be more severe. Without early and effective intervention, 
affected children are less likely to do well in school and more likely 
to have compromised employment and earnings opportunities. Moreover, 
untreated mental illness may increase a child's risk of coming into 
contact with the juvenile justice system. Finally, children with mental 
disorders are at a much higher risk for suicide.
  Unfortunately, many states' SCHIP programs are not providing the type 
of mental health care coverage that our most vulnerable children 
deserve. Many States impose discriminatory limits on mental health care 
coverage that do not apply to medical and surgical care. These can 
include caps on coverage of inpatient days and outpatient visits, as 
well as cost and testing restrictions that impair the ability of our 
physicians to make the best judgments for our kids.
  The Children's Mental Health Parity Act would prohibit discriminatory 
limits on mental health care in SCHIP plans by directing that any 
financial requirements or treatment limitations that apply to mental 
health or substance abuse services must be no more restrictive than the 
financial requirements or treatment limits that apply to other medical 
services. This bill would also eliminate a harmful provision in current 
law that authorizes states to lower the amount of mental health 
coverage they provide to children to just 75 percent of the coverage 
provided in other health care plans used by states.
  Many of the leading advocacy groups have endorsed the Children's 
Mental Health Parity Act, including Mental Health America, the American 
Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the Bazelon Center for Mental 
Health Law, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, The National Association for 
Children's Behavioral Health, the National Association of Psychiatric 
Health Systems, and the National Council for Community Behavioral 
Health care.
  America's kids who are covered through SCHIP should be guaranteed 
that the mental health benefits they receive are just as comprehensive 
as those for medical and surgical care. It is no less important to care 
for our kids' mental health, and this unfair and unwise disparity 
should no longer be acceptable. As we debate many important features of 
the SCHIP program during reauthorization, I look forward to working 
with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that this important, 
bipartisan measure receives the support that it deserves.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S.78. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a 
full exclusion for gain from certain small business stocks; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our economy is in the midst of the worst 
economic downturn since since the Great Depression. We all realize that 
small businesses are the backbone of our economy. During these 
difficult times, many small businesses are having trouble accessing 
credit which leads to a decline in job creation and innovation.
  Many of our most successful corporations started as small businesses, 
including AOL, Apple Computer, Compac Computer, Datastream, Evergreen 
Solar, Intel Corporations, and Sun Microsystems. As you can see from 
this partial list, many of these companies played an integral role in 
making the Internet a reality.
  Today, Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Invest in Small 
Business Act of 2009 to encourage private investment in small 
businesses by making changes to the existing partial exclusion for gain 
from certain small business stock.
  Investing in small businesses is essential to turning around the 
economy. Not only will investment in small business spur job creation. 
it will lead to new technological breakthroughs. We are at an integral 
juncture in developing technology to address global climate change. I 
believe that small business will repeat the role it played at the 
vanguard of the computer revolution--by leading the Nation in 
developing the technologies to substantially reduce carbon emissions. 
Small businesses already are at the forefront of these industries, and 
we need to do everything we can to encourage investment in small 
businesses.
  Back in 1993, I worked with Senator Bumpers to enact legislation to 
provide a 50 percent exclusion for gain for individuals from the sale 
of certain small business stock that is held for 5 years. This 
provision would provide a 50 percent exclusion for gain for individuals 
from the sale of certain small business stock that is held for 5 years. 
Since the enactment of this provision, the capital gains rate has been 
lowered twice without any changes to the exclusion. Due to the lower 
capital rates, this provision no longer provides a strong incentive for 
investment in small businesses.
  The Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 makes several changes to the 
existing provision. This legislation increases the exclusion amount 
from 50 percent to 100 percent and decreases the holding period from 5 
to 4 years. This bill would allow corporations to benefit from the 
provision as long as they own less than 25 percent of the small 
business corporation stock.
  Currently, the exclusion is treated as a preference item for 
calculating the alternative minimum tax, AMT. The Invest in Small 
Business Act of 2009 would repeal the exclusion as an AMT preference 
item.
  The Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 will provide an effective 
tax rate of 0 percent for the gain from the sale of certain small 
businesses. This lower capital gains rate will encourage investment in 
small businesses. In addition, the changes made by the Invest in Small 
Business Act of 2009 will make more taxpayers eligible for this 
provision.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Invest in Small Business Act of 
2009 which strengthens an existing tax incentive to provide an 
appropriate incentive to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 79. A bill to amend the Social Security Act to establish a Federal 
Reinsurance Program for Catastrophic Health Care Costs; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my home State of Massachusetts is setting 
an example for the rest of the country by taking bold steps to provide 
quality health coverage for everyone. Now it is time for Washington to 
do the same by bringing meaningful, affordable healthcare to the 
uninsured, in Massachusetts and across America.
  In Massachusetts the cost of health care is a major obstacle to the 
overall goal of universal coverage. The problem of the uninsured can't 
be solved unless the issue of skyrocketing health costs to families and 
businesses is also tackled. And fully reforming the healthcare system 
requires that the Federal Government begin shouldering some of the 
burden to help alleviate costs.
  Healthcare costs are highly concentrated in this country. The very 
few who suffer from catastrophic illness or injury drive costs up for 
everyone. One

[[Page 125]]

percent of patients account for 25 percent of healthcare costs, and 20 
percent of patients account for 80 percent of costs. To make healthcare 
more affordable, we must find a better way to share the immense burden 
of insuring the chronically ill and seriously injured.
  Part of the reason that businesses and health plans today fail to 
cover their workers is an aversion to risk. Patients who are 
catastrophically ill or injured often face the tragic combination of 
failing health and financial peril. But there's a way to combat these 
costs.
  Congress should make employers and healthcare plans an offer they 
can't refuse. It's called ``reinsurance.'' Reinsurance provides a 
backstop for the high costs of healthcare. The Federal Government will 
reimburse a percentage of the highest cost cases if employers agree to 
offer comprehensive health insurance benefits to all full time 
employees, including preventative care and health promotion benefits 
that are proven to make care affordable. This will result in lower 
costs and lower premiums for both employers and employees. If the 
Federal Government can help small and large businesses bear the burden 
of cost in the most expensive cases, we'll dramatically improve the 
access to health care for everyone.
  That is why I am introducing the Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers 
Reinsurance Act, to make the federal government a partner in helping 
businesses with the heavy financial burden of those catastrophic cases. 
Specifically, this legislation is designed to assist those catastrophic 
cases that cost more than $50,000 in a single year. Healthy Businesses, 
Healthy Workers will protect business owners from skyrocketing 
premiums, and provide more working families affordable, quality 
healthcare. With reinsurance, health insurance premiums for all of us 
will go down, by up to approximately 10 percent under this plan. This 
plan does have a cost associated with it, but the benefits will 
outweigh the costs. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year 
on inefficient and wasteful health expenditures. We need to make sure 
that these funds are being spent wisely to ensure that we can lower 
health care costs and improve coverage.
  I believe that we must act now to address the health care crisis in 
America, taking steps that create real change and address both access 
to care and the cost of care. There is a growing bipartisan consensus 
that the Federal Government has a responsibility to help the 
catastrophically ill. As we take the next steps toward alleviating our 
nation's health care crisis, a commonsense partnership between 
employers, families, and the government to share the costs of the 
sickest among us will lay the groundwork for achieving our ultimate 
goal: meaningful health care coverage for every single American. I ask 
all my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 111. A bill for the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief 
legislation to provide lawful permanent resident status to Joseph Gabra 
and his wife, Sharon Kamel, Egyptian nationals currently living with 
their children in Camarillo, California.
  Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel entered the United States legally on 
November 1, 1998, on tourist visas. They immediately filed for 
political asylum based on religious persecution.
  The couple fled Egypt because they had been targeted for their active 
involvement in the Coptic Christian Church in Egypt. Mr. Gabra was 
employed from 1990-1998 by the Coptic Catholic Diocese Church in El-
Fayoum as an accountant and ``project coordinator'' in the Office of 
Human and Social Elevation. He was responsible for building community 
facilities such as religious schools, among other things.
  His wife, Sharon Kamel, was employed as the Director for Training in 
the Human Resources Department of the Coptic Church.
  Both Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel had paid full-time positions with the 
Coptic Church.
  Unfortunately, they and their families suffered abuse because of 
their commitment to their church. Mr. Gabra was repeatedly jailed by 
Egyptian authorities because of his work for the church. In addition, 
Ms. Kamel's cousin was murdered and her brother's business was fire-
bombed.
  When Ms. Kamel became pregnant with their first child, the family was 
warned by a member of the Muslim brotherhood that if they did not raise 
their child as a Muslim, the child would be kidnapped and taken from 
them.
  Frightened by these threats, the young family sought refuge in the 
United States. Unfortunately, when they sought asylum here, Mr. Gabra, 
who has a speech impediment, had difficulty communicating his fear of 
persecution to the immigration judge.
  The judge denied their petition, telling the family that he did not 
see why they could not just move to another city in Egypt to avoid the 
abuse they were suffering. Since the time that they were denied asylum, 
Ms. Kamel's brother, who lived in the same town and suffered similar 
abuse, was granted asylum.
  I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe 
that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States 
citizen children would endure immense and unfair hardship.
  First, in the ten years that Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have lived here, 
they have worked to adjust their status through the appropriate legal 
channels. They left behind employment in Egypt and came to the United 
States on a lawful visa. Once here, they immediately notified 
authorities of their intent to seek asylum here. They have played by 
the rules and followed our laws.
  In addition, during those ten years, the couple has had four U.S. 
citizen children who do not speak Arabic and are unfamiliar with 
Egyptian culture. If the family is deported, the children would have to 
acclimate to a different culture, language and way of life.
  Jessica, age 10, is the Gabras' oldest child, and in the Gifted and 
Talented Education program in Ventura County. Rebecca, age 9, and 
Rafael, age 8, are old enough to understand that they would be leaving 
their schools, their teachers, their friends and their home. Veronica, 
the Gabra's youngest child, is just 3 years old.
  More troubling is the very real possibility that if sent to Egypt, 
these four American children would suffer discrimination and 
persecution because of their religion, just as the rest of their family 
reports.
  Mr. Gabra and Ms. Kamel have made a positive life for themselves and 
their family in the United States. Both have earned college degrees in 
Egypt and once in the United States, Mr. Gabra passed the Certified 
Public Accountant Examination on August 4, 2003. Since arriving here, 
Mr. Gabra has consistently worked to support his family.
  The positive impact they have made on their community is highlighted 
by the fact that I received a letter of support on their behalf signed 
by 160 members of their church and community. From everything I have 
learned about the family, we can expect that they will continue to 
contribute to their community in productive ways.
  Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to 
support this private relief bill on behalf of Joseph Gabra and Sharon 
Kamel.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 111

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

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel shall 
     each be deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and 
     remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible for 
     adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
     for permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an 
     application for such adjustment of status.

[[Page 126]]

       (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall 
     apply only if the application for adjustment of status is 
     filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of permanent resident status to Joseph Gabra and Sharon 
     Kamel, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent 
     fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of Joseph 
     Gabra and Sharon Kamel under section 203(a) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)), or, if 
     applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
     available to natives to the country of birth of Joseph Gabra 
     and Sharon Kamel under section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 112. A bill to treat certain hospital support organizations as 
qualified organizations for purposes of determining acquisition 
indebtedness; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the legislation I have reintroduced will 
extend to qualified teaching hospital support organizations the 
existing debt-financed safe harbor rule. Congress enacted that rule to 
support the public service activities of tax-exempt schools, 
universities, pension funds, and consortia of such institutions. Our 
teaching hospitals require similar support.
  As a result, for-profit hospitals are moving from older areas to 
affluent locations where residents can afford to pay for treatment. 
These private hospitals typically have no mandate for community 
service. In contrast, nonprofit hospitals must fulfill a community 
service requirement. They must stretch their resources to provide 
increased charitable care, update their facilities, and maintain 
skilled staffing resulting in closures of nonprofit hospitals due to 
this financial strain.
  The problem is particularly severe for teaching hospitals. Non-profit 
hospitals provide nearly all the postgraduate medical education in the 
United States. Post-graduate medical instruction is by nature not 
profitable. Instruction in the treatment of mental disorders and trauma 
is especially costly.
  Despite their financial problem the Nation's nonprofit hospitals 
strive to deliver a very high level of service. A study in the December 
2006 issue of Archives of International Medicine had surveyed 
hospitals' quality of care in four areas of treatment. It found that 
nonprofit hospitals consistently outperformed for-profit hospitals. It 
also found that teaching hospitals had a higher level of performance in 
treatment and diagnosis. It said that investment in technology and 
staffing leads to better care. And it recommended that alternative 
payments and sources of payments be considered to finance these 
improvements.
  The success and financial constraints of nonprofit teaching hospitals 
is evident in work of the Queen's Health Systems in my State. This 147-
year-old organization maintains the largest, private, nonprofit 
hospital in Hawaii. It serves as the primary clinical teaching facility 
for the University of Hawaii's medical residency programs in medicine, 
general surgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology, 
and psychiatry. It conducts educational and training programs for 
nurses and allied health personnel. It operates the only trauma unit as 
well as the chief behavioral health program in the State. It maintains 
clinics throughout Hawaii, health programs for native Hawaiians, and a 
small hospital on a rural, economically depressed island. Its medical 
reference library is the largest in the State. Not the least, it 
annually provides millions of dollars in uncompensated health services. 
To help pay for these community benefits, the Queen's Health Systems, 
as other nonprofit teaching hospitals, relies significantly on income 
from its endowment.
  In the past, the Congress has allowed tax-exempt schools, colleges, 
universities, and pension funds to invest their endowment in real 
estate so as to better meet their financial needs. Under the tax code 
these organizations can incur debt for real estate investments without 
triggering the tax on unrelated business activities.
  If the Queen's Health Systems were part of a university, it could 
borrow without incurring an unrelated business income tax. Not being 
part of a university, however, a teaching hospital and its support 
organization run into the tax code's debt financing prohibition. 
Nonprofit teaching hospitals have the same if not more pressing needs 
as universities, schools, and pension trusts. The same safe harbor rule 
should be extended to teaching hospitals.
  My bill would allow the support organizations for qualified teaching 
hospitals to engage in limited borrowing to enhance their endowment 
income. The proposal for teaching hospitals is actually more restricted 
than current law for schools, universities and pension trusts. Under 
safeguards developed by the Joint Committee on Taxation staff, a 
support organization for a teaching hospital can not buy and develop 
land on a commercial basis. The proposal is tied directly to the 
organization endowment. The staff's revenue estimates show that the 
provision with its general application will help a number of teaching 
hospitals.
  The U.S. Senate several times has acted favorably on this proposal. 
The Senate adopted a similar provision in H.R. 1836, the Economic 
Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The House conferees on that bill, 
however, objected that the provision was unrelated to the bill's focus 
on individual tax relief and the conference deleted the provision from 
the final legislation. Subsequently, the Finance Committee included the 
provision in H.R. 7, the CARE Act of 2002, and in S. 476, the CARE Act 
of 2003 which the Senate passed. In a previous Congress' S. 6, the 
Marriage, Opportunity, Relief, and Empowerment Act of 2005, which the 
Senate leadership introduced, also included the proposal.
  As the Senate Finance Committee's recent hearings show, substantial 
health needs would go unmet if not for our charitable hospitals. It is 
time for the Congress to assist the Nation's teaching hospitals in 
their charitable, educational service.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill by 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 112

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

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

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

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

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

     For purposes of this subparagraph, the term `eligible 
     indebtedness' means indebtedness secured by real property 
     acquired by the organization, directly or indirectly, by gift 
     or devise, the proceeds of which are used exclusively to 
     acquire any leasehold interest in such real property or for 
     improvements on, or repairs to, such real property. A 
     determination under clauses (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph 
     shall be made each time such

[[Page 127]]

     an eligible indebtedness (or the qualified refinancing of 
     such an eligible indebtedness) is incurred. For purposes of 
     this subparagraph, a refinancing of such an eligible 
     indebtedness shall be considered qualified if such 
     refinancing does not exceed the amount of the refinanced 
     eligible indebtedness immediately before the refinancing.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to indebtedness incurred on or after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 113. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
health care practitioners in rural areas with training in preventive 
health care, including both physical and mental care, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today, again, to introduce the 
Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act, a bill that responds to the 
dire need of our rural communities for quality health care and disease 
prevention programs. Almost one fourth of Americans live in rural areas 
and frequently lack access to adequate physical and mental health care. 
As many as 21 million of the 3 million people living in underserved 
rural areas are without access to a primary care provider. Even in 
areas where providers do exist, there are numerous limits to access, 
such as geography, distance, lack of transportation, and lack of 
knowledge about available resources. Due to the diversity of rural 
populations, language and cultural obstacles are often a factor in the 
access to medical care.
  Compound these problems with limited financial resources, and the 
result is that many Americans living in rural communities go without 
vital health care, especially preventive care. Children fail to receive 
immunizations and routine checkups. Preventable illnesses and injuries 
occur needlessly, and lead to expensive hospitalizations. Early 
symptoms of emotional problems and substance abuse go undetected, and 
often develop into full-blown disorders.
  An Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, ``Reducing Risks for 
Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research,'' 
highlights the benefits of preventive care for all health problems. The 
training of health care providers in prevention is crucial in order to 
meet the demand for care in underserved areas. Currently, rural health 
care providers lack preventive care training opportunities.
  Interdisciplinary preventive training of rural health care providers 
must be encouraged. Through such training, rural health care providers 
can build a strong educational foundation from the behavioral, 
biological, and psychological sciences. Interdisciplinary team 
prevention training will also facilitate operations at sites with both 
health and mental health clinics by facilitating routine consultation 
between groups. Emphasizing the mental health disciplines and their 
services as part of the health care team will contribute to the overall 
health of rural communities.
  The Rural Preventive Health Care Training Act would implement the 
risk-reduction model described in the IOM study. This model is based on 
the identification of risk factors and targets specific interventions 
for those risk factors. The human suffering caused by poor health is 
immeasurable, and places a huge financial burden on communities, 
families, and individuals. By implementing preventive measures to 
reduce this suffering, the potential psychological and financial 
savings are enormous.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 113

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Preventive Health Care 
     Training Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE TRAINING.

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

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

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary may make grants to, and 
     enter into contracts with, eligible applicants to enable such 
     applicants to provide preventive health care training, in 
     accordance with subsection (c), to health care practitioners 
     practicing in rural areas. Such training shall, to the extent 
     practicable, include training in health care to prevent both 
     physical and mental disorders before the initial occurrence 
     of such disorders. In carrying out this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall encourage, but may not require, the use of 
     interdisciplinary training project applications.
       ``(b) Limitation.--To be eligible to receive training using 
     assistance provided under subsection (a), a health care 
     practitioner shall be determined by the eligible applicant 
     involved to be practicing, or desiring to practice, in a 
     rural area.
       ``(c) Use of Assistance.--Amounts received under a grant 
     made or contract entered into under this section shall be 
     used--
       ``(1) to provide student stipends to individuals attending 
     rural community colleges or other institutions that service 
     predominantly rural communities, for the purpose of enabling 
     the individuals to receive preventive health care training;
       ``(2) to increase staff support at rural community colleges 
     or other institutions that service predominantly rural 
     communities to facilitate the provision of preventive health 
     care training;
       ``(3) to provide training in appropriate research and 
     program evaluation skills in rural communities;
       ``(4) to create and implement innovative programs and 
     curricula with a specific prevention component; and
       ``(5) for other purposes as the Secretary determines to be 
     appropriate.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section, 
     $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2013.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE:
  S. 114. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for 
the establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise, again, today to reintroduce 
legislation to amend the Public Health Service Act for the 
establishment of a National Center for Social Work Research. Social 
workers provide a multitude of health care delivery services throughout 
America to our children, families, the elderly, and persons suffering 
from various forms of abuse and neglect. The purpose of this center is 
to support and disseminate information about the basic and clinical 
social work research and training, with emphasis on service to 
underserved and rural populations.
  While the Federal Government provides funding for various social work 
research activities through the National Institutes of Health and other 
Federal agencies, there presently is no coordination or direction of 
these critical activities and no overall assessment of needs and 
opportunities for empirical knowledge development. The establishment of 
a Center for Social Work Research would result in improved behavioral 
and mental health care outcomes for our Nation's children, families, 
the elderly, and others.
  In order to meet the increasing challenges of bringing cost-
effective, research-based quality health care to all Americans, we must 
recognize the important contributions of social work researchers to 
health care delivery and central role that the Center for Social Work 
can provide in facilitating their work.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 114

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Center for Social 
     Work Research Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) social workers focus on the improvement of individual 
     and family functioning and the creation of effective health 
     and mental health prevention and treatment interventions in 
     order for individuals to become more productive members of 
     society;
       (2) social workers provide front line prevention and 
     treatment services in the areas of school violence, aging, 
     teen pregnancy, child abuse, domestic violence, juvenile 
     crime, and substance abuse, particularly in rural and 
     underserved communities; and

[[Page 128]]

       (3) social workers are in a unique position to provide 
     valuable research information on these complex social 
     concerns, taking into account a wide range of social, 
     medical, economic and community influences from an 
     interdisciplinary, family-centered and community-based 
     approach.

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 485I. PURPOSE OF CENTER.

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

     ``SEC. 485J. SPECIFIC AUTHORITIES.

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

     ``SEC. 485K. ADVISORY COUNCIL.

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

     The Secretary shall make appointments to the advisory council 
     in such a manner as to ensure that the terms of the members 
     do not all expire in the same year.
       ``(4) Compensation.--Members of the advisory council who 
     are officers or employees of the United States shall not 
     receive any compensation for service on the advisory council. 
     The remaining members shall receive, for each day (including 
     travel time) they are engaged in the performance of the 
     functions of the advisory council, compensation at rates not 
     to exceed the daily equivalent of the maximum rate payable 
     for a position at grade GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       ``(c) Terms.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term of office of an individual 
     appointed to the advisory council under subsection (b)(3) 
     shall be 4 years, except that any individual appointed to 
     fill a vacancy on the advisory council shall serve for the 
     remainder of the unexpired term. A member may serve after the 
     expiration of the member's term until a successor has been 
     appointed.
       ``(2) Reappointments.--A member of the advisory council who 
     has been appointed under subsection (b)(3) for a term of 4 
     years may not be reappointed to the advisory council prior to 
     the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date on 
     which the prior term expired.
       ``(3) Vacancy.--If a vacancy occurs on the advisory council 
     among the members under subsection (b)(3), the Secretary 
     shall make an appointment to fill that vacancy not later than 
     90 days after the date on which the vacancy occurs.
       ``(d) Chairperson.--The chairperson of the advisory council 
     shall be selected by the Secretary from among the members 
     appointed under subsection (b)(3), except that the Secretary 
     may select the Director of the Center to be the chairperson 
     of the advisory council. The term of office of the 
     chairperson shall be 2 years.
       ``(e) Meetings.--The advisory council shall meet at the 
     call of the chairperson or upon the request of the Director 
     of the Center, but not less than 3 times each fiscal year. 
     The location of the meetings of the advisory council shall be 
     subject to the approval of the Director of the Center.
       ``(f) Administrative Provisions.--The Director of the 
     Center shall designate a member of the staff of the Center to 
     serve as the executive secretary of the advisory council. The 
     Director of the Center shall make available to the advisory 
     council such staff, information, and other assistance as the 
     council may require to carry out its functions. The Director 
     of the Center shall provide orientation and training for new 
     members of the advisory council to provide such members with 
     such information and training as may be appropriate for their 
     effective participation in the functions of the advisory 
     council.
       ``(g) Comments and Recommendations.--The advisory council 
     may prepare, for inclusion in the biennial report under 
     section 485L--
       ``(1) comments with respect to the activities of the 
     advisory council in the fiscal years for which the report is 
     prepared;
       ``(2) comments on the progress of the Center in meeting its 
     objectives; and
       ``(3) recommendations with respect to the future direction 
     and program and policy emphasis of the center.
     The advisory council may prepare such additional reports as 
     it may determine appropriate.

     ``SEC. 485L. BIENNIAL REPORT.

       ``The Director of the Center, after consultation with the 
     advisory council for the Center, shall prepare for inclusion 
     in the biennial report under section 403, a biennial report 
     that shall consist of a description of the activities of the 
     Center and program policies of the Director of the Center in 
     the fiscal years for which the report is prepared. The 
     Director of the Center may prepare such additional reports as 
     the Director determines

[[Page 129]]

     appropriate. The Director of the Center shall provide the 
     advisory council of the Center an opportunity for the 
     submission of the written comments described in section 
     485K(g).

     ``SEC. 485M. QUARTERLY REPORT.

       ``The Director of the Center shall prepare and submit to 
     Congress a quarterly report that contains a summary of 
     findings and policy implications derived from research 
     conducted or supported through the Center.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 116. A bill to require the Secretary of the Treasury to allocate 
$10,000,000,000 of Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to local 
governments that have suffered significant losses due to highly-rated 
investments in failed financial institutions; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will provide relief to local governments that have suffered losses 
due to highly-rated investments with failed financial institutions, 
such as Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual.
  The TARP Assistance for Local Governments Act would require the 
Treasury Secretary to provide $10 billion in TARP funds to local 
governments that suffered losses due to investments in failed financial 
institutions; and limit relief to local governments with investments in 
failed financial institutions that were highly rated, as determined by 
the Treasury Secretary.
  This legislation is necessary because local governments are in 
jeopardy of losing up to $10 billion as a result of these investments.
  In California 28 cities and counties could lose nearly $300 million.
  These investments include basic operational funds which cities and 
counties rely upon to function.
  For many cities and counties that are already struggling with budget 
shortfalls, the consequences of these losses are severe.
  Public safety, education, public health, infrastructure, and transit 
will be compromised.
  Communities large and small are significantly impacted.
  These are examples from my State that demonstrate the gravity of this 
situation.
  This list was included in a December 22 letter to Secretary Paulson, 
and to date, I have not received a response. San Mateo County sustained 
a loss of $30 million, which will require the county to abandon plans 
for a new and urgently needed county jail. The current jail will 
continue to operate in overcrowded conditions, far beyond the rating of 
the facility. The result will be unsafe working conditions for the 
corrections personnel and the likelihood that convicted criminals will 
be released into the community early and in large numbers.
  The City of Shafter, a small community of 15,000 in the San Joaquin 
Valley, sustained a loss of $300,000, or nearly 4 percent of its annual 
budget. The City will be forced to make across-the-board cuts in all 
services, including police and fire.
  Monterey County is facing a $30 million loss. Amid numerous other 
cuts, hardest hit will be programs targeting gang activities, including 
a special task force and the construction of new adult and juvenile 
corrections facilities to manage these criminals.
  The San Mateo County Transportation Authority sustained a loss of 
more than $25 million, which will mean delays and higher costs for 
major projects that will reduce emissions and traffic, specifically the 
electrification of the Caltrain Peninsula Commuter Rail Service. 
Similarly, cuts in highway and roads projects will put more people on 
the local roads for longer times at a major cost in compromised air 
quality.
  The City of Culver City has lost $1 million. This will result in a 
substantial reduction in planned street repairs and higher liability 
exposure from accidents, greater environmental degradation from storm 
water drain off, and worsened traffic congestion in a region of the 
U.S. ranked as one of the worst for traffic.
  The Hillsborough City School District lost over $924,000. Projects to 
create more classrooms for increased enrollment will not take place, 
increasing class sizes. Combined with other budget cuts from the State, 
all the District's programs are threatened.
  The Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, which provides 
sanitary sewer and storm water services to the City of Vallejo, 
population 119,600, and nearby areas of Solano County, sustained losses 
of $4.5 million in Lehman Brothers investments and $1.46 million in 
Washington Mutual investments. The result is that aging infrastructure 
essential to the health of this community will not be replaced. The 
City of Vallejo recently declared Chapter 9 Municipal bankruptcy.
  Sacramento County sustained an increase in costs of $8 million 
related to an interest rate swap agreement with Lehman. This increase 
means fewer funds for sheriff's patrol and investigations and probation 
supervision, resulting in an increased risk to the safety of the 
community and reductions in social safety net services, at a time of 
increased community need.
  The City of Folsom lost $700,000, which has caused the City to 
indefinitely postpone staffing and equipping a new fire station.
  The San Mateo County Community College District sustained a loss of 
$25 million in voter-approved bond funds. As a result, the District 
will be forced to abandon a program to build more classrooms, and, 
therefore, turn away thousands of potential students, many of them 
unemployed adults seeking job training.
  The economic rescue legislation included a provision to require the 
Secretary of the Treasury to consider the impact of these losses on 
local governments when disbursing TARP funds.
  But, to date, the Secretary has not exercised his authority to assist 
local governments with such funds.
  The TARP Assistance for Local Governments Act of 2009 will change 
this, and ensure that communities remain solvent and taxpayers are 
protected.
  Given the urgency of this situation, we can no longer afford to wait.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. Boxer, 
        and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 117. A bill to protect the property and security of homeowners who 
are subject to foreclosure proceedings, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing the Foreclosure Rescue 
Fraud Act of 2009 with my colleagues Senators Collins and Lincoln. This 
legislation, which we introduced last Congress, will make it more 
difficult for financial predators to take advantage of homeowners in 
foreclosure.
  Foreclosure rescue scams are another consequence of the housing 
crisis that is plaguing the country. Foreclosure filings have been 
climbing across the country for the past two years and in Wisconsin, 
filings have risen 22 percent over the past year. Additionally, the 
Federal Reserve estimates that 2.5 million Americans will be facing 
foreclosure in 2009. As default rates and foreclosure filings have 
steadily increased, so have financial scams which prey on homeowners. 
The Better Business Bureau listed foreclosure rescue scams as one of 
the top ten financial scams in 2008.
  For most people, their home is their greatest asset. When a homeowner 
falls behind in their payments, it can cause a great deal of emotional 
stress on the family. Scam artists prey on owner's desperation and give 
them a false sense of security, claiming they can help ``save their 
home.'' The types of scams vary, but the end result is that the 
homeowner is left in a more desperate situation than before.
  The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act aims to prevent these cruel abuses 
by increasing disclosure and creating strict requirements for a person 
or entity offering foreclosure-rescue services. The legislation 
prohibits a ``foreclosure consultant'' from collecting any fee or 
compensation before completing contracted services, and from obtaining 
power of attorney from a homeowner. It also requires full disclosure of 
third-party consideration in the property and creates a 3-day right to

[[Page 130]]

cancel the foreclosure-rescue contract. Finally, the legislation 
creates a federal ``floor'' of protection and allows states without 
rescue-fraud laws to use these provisions as a way to help scam 
victims. The Foreclosure Rescue Fraud Act will make it easier for 
states and the Federal Government to combat these schemes and protect 
people who are already financially distressed from being made worse 
off.
  The past year has exposed the irregularities and inadequacies of our 
banking regulations. As Congress continues to work on proposals to 
restore confidence in our financial industry, it is imperative that we 
put in place new rules and regulations that better protect consumers in 
order to avoid further economic strain.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
        Nelson of Florida, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Casey):
  S. 118. A bill to amend section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, to 
improve the program under such section for supportive housing for the 
elderly, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I am introducing the Section 202 Supportive 
Housing for the Elderly Act of 2008 with my colleague Senator Charles 
Schumer for the purpose of expanding and improving the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development's Section 202 Supportive Housing for the 
Elderly Program. Section 202 provides capital grants to nonprofit 
community organizations for the development of supportive housing and 
provision of rental assistance exclusively for low-income seniors. This 
program supplies housing that includes access to supportive services to 
allow seniors to remain safely in their homes and age in place. Access 
to supportive services reduces the occurrence of costly nursing home 
stays and helps save both seniors and the Federal Government money.
  There are over 300,000 seniors living in 6,000 Section 202 
developments across the country. Unfortunately, the program is far from 
meeting the growing demand. Approximately 730,000 additional senior 
housing units will be needed by 2020 in order to address the future 
housing needs of low-income seniors. There are currently 10 seniors 
vying for each unit that becomes available, with many seniors waiting 
years before finding a home. To make matters worse, we are losing older 
Section 202 properties to developers of high-priced condominiums and 
apartments. As a result, many seniors currently participating in the 
program could end up homeless.
  Congress needs to act now to address the demand for safe, affordable 
senior housing. Our legislation would promote the construction of new 
senior housing facilities as well as preserve and improve upon existing 
facilities. The legislation would also support the conversion of 
existing facilities into assisted living facilities that provide a wide 
variety of additional supportive health and social services. Under 
current law, these processes are time-consuming and bureaucratic, often 
requiring waivers and special permission from HUD. Finally, our 
legislation provides priority consideration for our homeless seniors 
seeking a place to call their own. With this bill, we hope to reduce 
current impediments and increase the availability of affordable and 
supportive housing for our Nations most vulnerable seniors.
  I want to thank the American Association of Homes and Services for 
the Aging as well as the Wisconsin Association of Homes and Services 
for the Aging for being champions of this legislation and for working 
with us to develop a comprehensive bill that will help meet the growing 
need for senior housing in this Nation.
  Senior citizens deserve to have housing that will help them maintain 
their independence. I urge that my colleagues will join Senator Schumer 
and me in our efforts to ensure that older Americans have a place to 
call home during their golden years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 118

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.

                   TITLE I--NEW CONSTRUCTION REFORMS

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

                         TITLE II--REFINANCING

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

                 TITLE III--ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES

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

  TITLE IV--FACILITATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION TRANSACTIONS

Sec. 401. Use of sale or refinancing proceeds.

             TITLE V--NATIONAL SENIOR HOUSING CLEARINGHOUSE

Sec. 501. National senior housing clearinghouse.

                   TITLE I--NEW CONSTRUCTION REFORMS

     SEC. 101. PROJECT RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

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

     SEC. 102. SELECTION CRITERIA.

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

     SEC. 103. DEVELOPMENT COST LIMITATIONS.

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

     SEC. 104. OWNER DEPOSITS.

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

     SEC. 105. DEFINITION OF PRIVATE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.

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

     SEC. 106. PREFERENCES FOR HOMELESS ELDERLY.

       Subsection (j) of section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959 
     (12 U.S.C. 1701q(j)) is amended by

[[Page 131]]

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

     SEC. 107. NONMETROPOLITAN ALLOCATION.

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

                         TITLE II--REFINANCING

     SEC. 201. APPROVAL OF PREPAYMENT OF DEBT.

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

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

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

     SEC. 202. SOURCES OF REFINANCING.

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

     SEC. 203. USE OF UNEXPENDED AMOUNTS.

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

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

     SEC. 204. USE OF PROJECT RESIDUAL RECEIPTS.

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

     SEC. 205. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS.

       Section 811 of the American Homeownership and Economic 
     Opportunity Act of 2000 (12 U.S.C. 1701q note) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(e) Senior Preservation Rental Assistance Contracts.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in connection 
     with a prepayment plan for a project approved under 
     subsection (a) by the Secretary or as otherwise approved by 
     the Secretary to prevent displacement of elderly residents of 
     the project in the case of refinancing or recapitalization 
     and to further preservation and affordability of such 
     project, the Secretary shall provide project-based rental 
     assistance for the project under a senior preservation rental 
     assistance contract, as follows:
       ``(1) Assistance under the contract shall be made available 
     to the private nonprofit organization owner--
       ``(A) for a term of at least 20 years, subject to annual 
     appropriations; and
       ``(B) under the same rules governing project-based rental 
     assistance made available under section 8 of the Housing Act 
     of 1937.
       ``(2) Any projects for which a senior preservation rental 
     assistance contract is provided shall be subject to a use 
     agreement to ensure continued project affordability having a 
     term of the longer of (A) the term of the senior preservation 
     rental assistance contract, or (B) such term as is required 
     by the new financing.
       ``(f) Mortgage Sale Demonstration.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary may sell mortgages 
     associated with loans made under section 202 of the Housing 
     Act of 1959 (as in effect before the enactment of the 
     Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act) in 
     accordance with the relevant terms for sales of subsidized 
     loans on multifamily housing projects under section 203 of 
     the Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1978 (12 
     U.S.C. 1701z-11). For the purpose of demonstrating the 
     efficiency, effectiveness, quality, and timeliness of asset 
     management and regulatory oversight of certain portfolios of 
     such mortgages by State housing finance agencies, the 
     Secretary shall carry out a demonstration program, in not 
     more than 5 States, to sell portfolios of such mortgages to 
     State housing finance agencies for a price not to exceed the 
     unpaid principal balances of such mortgages and otherwise in 
     accordance with the requirements of such section 203.
       ``(2) Limitations.--In carrying out the demonstration 
     program required under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--

[[Page 132]]

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

                 TITLE III--ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES

     SEC. 301. DEFINITION OF ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY.

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

     SEC. 302. MONTHLY ASSISTANCE PAYMENT UNDER RENTAL ASSISTANCE.

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

  TITLE IV--FACILITATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRESERVATION TRANSACTIONS

     SEC. 401. USE OF SALE OR REFINANCING PROCEEDS.

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

             TITLE V--NATIONAL SENIOR HOUSING CLEARINGHOUSE

     SEC. 501. NATIONAL SENIOR HOUSING CLEARINGHOUSE.

       (a) Establishment.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall establish and operate a clearinghouse to 
     serve as a national repository to receive, collect, process, 
     assemble, and disseminate information regarding the 
     availability and quality of multifamily developments for 
     elderly tenants, including--
       (1) the availability of--
       (A) supportive housing for the elderly pursuant to section 
     202 of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U.S.C. 1701q), including 
     any housing unit assisted with a project rental assistance 
     contract under such section;
       (B) properties and units eligible for assistance under 
     section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
     1437f);
       (C) properties eligible for the low-income housing tax 
     credit under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986;
       (D) units in assisted living facilities insured pursuant to 
     section 221(d)(4) of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1715l(d)(4));
       (E) units in any multifamily project that has been 
     converted into an assisted living facility for elderly 
     persons pursuant to section 202b of the Housing Act of 1959 
     (12 U.S.C. 1701q-2); and
       (F) any other federally assisted or subsidized housing for 
     the elderly;
       (2) the number of available units in each property, 
     project, or facility described in paragraph (1);
       (3) the number of bedrooms in each available unit in each 
     property, project, or facility described in paragraph (1);
       (4) the estimated cost to a potential tenant to rent or 
     reside in each available unit in each property, project, or 
     facility described in paragraph (1);
       (5) the presence of a waiting list for entry into any 
     available unit in each property, project, or facility 
     described in paragraph (1);
       (6) the number of persons on the waiting list for entry 
     into any available unit in each property, project, or 
     facility described in paragraph (1);
       (7) the estimated time an individual can expect to be on 
     the waiting list for entry into any available unit in each 
     property, project, or facility described in paragraph (1);
       (8) the amenities available in each available unit in each 
     property, project, or facility described in paragraph (1), 
     including--
       (A) the services provided by such property, project, or 
     facility;
       (B) the size and availability of common space within each 
     property, project, or facility;
       (C) the availability of organized activities for 
     individuals residing in such property, project, or facility; 
     and
       (D) any other additional amenities available to individuals 
     residing in such property, project, or facility;
       (9) the level of care (personal, physical, or nursing) 
     available to individuals residing in

[[Page 133]]

     any property, project, or facility described in paragraph 
     (1);
       (10) whether there is a service coordinator in any 
     property, project, or facility described in paragraph (1); 
     and
       (11) any other criteria determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Collection and Updating of Information.--
       (1) Initial collection.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development shall conduct an annual survey requesting 
     information from each owner of a property, project, or 
     facility described in subsection (a)(1) regarding the 
     provisions described in paragraphs (2) through (11) of such 
     subsection.
       (2) Response time.--Not later than 30 days after receiving 
     the request described under paragraph (1), the owner of each 
     such property, project, or facility shall submit such 
     information to the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development.
       (3) Public availability.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development receives the 
     submission of any information required under paragraph (2), 
     the Secretary shall make such information publicly available 
     through the clearinghouse.
       (4) Updates.--The Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development shall conduct an annual survey of each owner of a 
     property, project, or facility described in subsection (a)(1) 
     for the purpose of updating or modifying information provided 
     in the initial collection of information under paragraph (1). 
     Not later than 30 days after receiving such a request, the 
     owner of each such property, project, or facility shall 
     submit such updates or modifications to the Secretary. Not 
     later than 60 days after receiving such updates or 
     modifications, the Secretary shall inform the clearinghouse 
     of such updated or modified information.
       (c) Functions.--The clearinghouse established under 
     subsection (a) shall--
       (1) respond to inquiries from State and local governments, 
     other organizations, and individuals requesting information 
     regarding the availability of housing in multifamily 
     developments for elderly tenants;
       (2) make such information publicly available via the 
     Internet website of the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, which shall include--
       (A) access via electronic mail; and
       (B) an easily searchable, sortable, downloadable, and 
     accessible index that itemizes the availability of housing in 
     multifamily developments for elderly tenants by State, 
     county, and zip code;
       (3) establish a toll-free number to provide the public with 
     specific information regarding the availability of housing in 
     multifamily developments for elderly tenants; and
       (4) perform any other duty that the Secretary determines 
     necessary to achieve the purposes of this section.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as necessary to carry out this 
     section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
   S. 119. A bill for the relief of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie 
Raymonde Toto; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private 
relief bill on behalf of Guy Privat Tape and his wife Lou Nazie 
Raymonde Toto. Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto are citizens of the Ivory Coast, 
but have been living in the San Francisco area of California for 
approximately 15 years.
  The story of Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto is compelling and I believe they 
merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of 
relief as a private bill.
  Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were previously political activists who were 
subjected to numerous atrocities in the early 1990s in the Ivory Coast.
  After a demonstration in which both were promoting peace, they were 
jailed and tortured by their own government. Ms. Toto was brutally 
raped by her captors and in 1997 learned that she had contracted HIV.
  Despite the hardships that they suffered, Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto were 
able to make a better life for themselves in the United States. Mr. 
Tape arrived in the U.S. in 1993 on a B1/B2 non-immigrant visa. Ms. 
Toto entered without inspection in 1995 from Spain. Despite being 
diagnosed with HIV, Ms. Toto was able to give birth to two healthy 
children, Melody, age 10, and Emmanuel, age 6.
  Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated 
themselves to community involvement and a strong work ethic. They pay 
taxes and own their own home in Hercules, CA. They are active members 
of Easter Hill United Methodist Church.
  Mr. Tape works full-time as a security guard with Universal 
Protective Services. He also manages a small business, Melody's Carpet 
Cleaning & Upholstery. He employs four other individuals, all U.S. 
citizens. Unfortunately, in 2002, Mr. Tape was diagnosed with urologic 
cancer. While his doctor states that the cancer is currently in 
remission, he will continue to require life-long surveillance to 
monitor for reoccurrence of the disease.
  In addition to raising her two children, Ms. Toto became a certified 
Nursing Assistant in 2001 and currently works at Creekside Health Care 
in San Pablo, CA. She hopes to finish her schooling so that she can 
become a Registered Nurse. Ms. Toto continues to receive medical 
treatment for HIV. According to her doctor, without access to adequate 
health care and laboratory monitoring, she is at risk of developing 
life threatening illnesses.
  Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto applied for asylum when they arrived in the 
U.S., but after many years of litigation, the claim was ultimately 
denied by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Although the regime which subjected Mr. Tape and Ms. Toto to 
imprisonment and torture is no longer in power, Mr. Tape has been 
afraid to return to the Ivory Coast due to his prior association with 
President Gbagbo. Mr. Tape strongly believes that his family will be 
targeted if they return to the Ivory Coast.
  One of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family to 
remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would have 
on their two children. For Melody and Emmanuel, the United States is 
the only country they have ever known. Mr. Tape believes that if the 
family returns to the Ivory Coast, these two young children will be 
forced to enter the army.
  We are the only hope for this family who seeks to remain in the 
United States. To send them back to the Ivory Coast, where they will 
likely face persecution and will not be able to obtain adequate medical 
treatment for their illnesses would be devastating to them. They are 
contributing members of their community and have embraced the American 
dream with their strong work ethic and family values. I have received 
approximately 50 letters from the church community in support of this 
family. Representative George Miller has also requested that we assist 
this family.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 119

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

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

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

[[Page 134]]

     203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant 
     visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
     birth of Guy Privat Tape and Lou Nazie Raymonde Toto under 
     section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 120. A bill for the relief of Denes Fulop and Gyorgyi Fulop; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today a private immigration 
relief bill to provide lawful permanent residence status to Denes and 
Gyorgyi Fulop, Hungarian nationals who have lived in California for 
more than 20 years. The Fulops are the parents of six U.S. citizen 
children.
  I first introduced this bill in June, 2000. Today, the Fulops 
continue to face deportation having exhausted all administrative 
remedies under our immigration system.
  The Fulops' story is a compelling one and one which I believe merits 
Congress' consideration for humanitarian relief.
  The most poignant tragedy to affect this family occurred in May of 
2000, when the Fulops' eldest child, Robert ``Bobby'' Fulop, an 
accomplished 15-year-old teenager, died suddenly of a heart aneurism. 
Bobby was considered the shining star of his family.
  That same year their 6-year-old daughter, Elizabeth, was diagnosed 
with moderate pulmonary stenosis, a potentially life-threatening heart 
condition and a frightening situation similar to Bobby's. Not long ago, 
she successfully underwent heart surgery, but requires medical 
supervision to ensure her good health.
  The Fulops' youngest child, Matthew, was born seven weeks premature. 
He subsequently underwent several kidney surgeries and is still being 
closely monitored by physicians.
  Compounding these tragedies is the fact that today the Fulops face 
deportation. They face deportation, in part, because in 1995 the family 
traveled to Hungary and remained there for more than 90 days.
  Under the pre-1996 immigration law, prior to the Illegal Immigration 
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, their stay in Hungary 
would not have been a factor in their immigration case and they would 
have been eligible for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
residents.
  Indeed, in 1996, Mr. and Mrs. Fulop applied to the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, INS, for permanent resident status. Due to 
large backlogs, the INS did not interview them until 1998. By the time 
their applications were considered, the new 1996 immigration law had 
taken effect.
  Given their one-time 90 day trip outside the United States, they were 
statutorily ineligible for relief pursuant to the cancellation of 
removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  One cannot help but conclude that had the INS acted on the Fulops' 
application for relief from deportation in a timelier manner, they 
would have qualified for suspension of deportation under the pre-1996 
law, given that they were long-term residents of the United States with 
U.S. citizen children and many positive factors in their favor.
  The irony of this situation is that the Fulops were gone from the 
United States for nearly five months in 1995 because they traveled to 
Hungary to help Mr. Fulop's brother build his home. Mr. Fulop's brother 
is handicapped and they went to help remodel his home.
  The Fulops are good and decent people. Mr. Fulop is a masonry 
contractor and the Owner and President of his own construction 
company--Sumeg International. He has owned this business for almost 14 
years.
  The couple is active in their church and community. As Pastor Peter 
Petrovic of the Apostolic Christian Church of San Diego says in his 
letter of support, ``[t]he family is an exceptional asset to their 
community.'' Mrs. Fulop has served as a Sunday school teacher and 
volunteers regularly at Heritage K-8 Charter School in Escondido. Mrs. 
Morris, a Heritage K-8 Charter School faculty member says in her letter 
of support that Mrs. Fulop is ``. . . a valuable asset to our school 
and community.''
  Mr. President, this is a tragic situation. Essentially, as happened 
to many families under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996, the rules of the game were changed in the 
middle. When the Fulops applied for relief from deportation they were 
eligible for suspension of deportation. By the time the INS got around 
to their application, nearly three years later, they were no longer 
eligible and in fact suspension of deportation as a form of relief 
ceased to exist.
  The Fulops today have been in the United States since the early 
1980s. Most harmful is the effect that their deportation will have on 
the children, all of whom were born here and who range from five years 
old to 21 years of age. Their two eldest children are attending 
college, one studying structural engineering and the other studying to 
become a dental hygienist.
  It is my hope that Congress sees fit to provide an opportunity for 
this family to remain together in the United States given their many 
years here, the profound sadness they have already experienced and the 
harm that would come from their deportation to their six U.S. citizen 
children.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 120

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

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any order, for the purposes of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Denes Fulop and 
     Gyorgyi Fulop shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted 
     to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
     under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1255).
       (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall 
     apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant 
     visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed 
     with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of immigrant visas to Denes Fulop and Gyorgyi Fulop, the 
     Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent fiscal year, 
     the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 
     to natives of the country of birth of Denes Fulop and Gyorgyi 
     Fulop under section or 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the 
     total number of immigrant visas that are of birth of Denes 
     Fulop and Gyorgyi Fulop under section 202(e) of that Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 121. A bill for the relief of Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria 
Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private immigration 
relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to 
Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana 
Arreola and Cindy Jael Arreola, Mexican nationals living in the Fresno 
area of California.
  Mr. and Mrs. Arreola have lived in the United States for over 20 
years. Two of their five children, Nayely, age 23, and Cindy, age 19, 
also stand to benefit from this legislation. Their other three 
children, Roberto, age 16, Daniel, age 13, and Saray, age 11, are 
United States citizens. Today, Mr. and Mrs. Arreola and their two 
eldest children face deportation.
  The story of the Arreola family is compelling and I believe they 
merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of 
relief as a private bill.
  The Arreolas are in this uncertain situation in part because of 
grievous errors committed by their previous counsel, who has since been 
disbarred. In fact, the attorney's conduct was so egregious that it 
compelled an immigration judge to write the Executive Office of 
Immigration Review seeking his disbarment for the disservice he caused 
his immigration clients.

[[Page 135]]

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

                                 S. 121

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

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any order, for the purposes of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Esidronio Arreola-
     Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, 
     and Cindy Jael Arreola shall be deemed to have been lawfully 
     admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be 
     eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment 
     of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255).
       (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall 
     apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant 
     visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed 
     with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of immigrant visas to Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna 
     Cobian Arreola, Nayely Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael 
     Arreola, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by 4, during the current or subsequent 
     fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Marina Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely 
     Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 203(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, 
     if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Esidronio Arreola-Saucedo, Maria Elna Cobian Arreola, Nayely 
     Bibiana Arreola, and Cindy Jael Arreola under section 202(e) 
     of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(c)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 122. A bill for the relief of Robert Liang and Alice Liang; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief 
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Robert Kuan 
Liang and his wife, Chun-Mei, Alice, Hsu-Liang, foreign nationals who 
live in San Bruno, California.
  I have decided to reintroduce private relief immigration bills on 
their behalf because I believe that, without them, this hardworking 
couple and their three United States citizen children would endure an 
immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, without this legislation, this 
family may not remain a family for much longer.
  The Liangs are foreign nationals facing deportation on account of 
their overstay of visitors visas and the failure of their previous 
attorney to timely file a suspension of deportation application before 
the immigration laws changed in 1996.
  Mr. Liang is a foreign national and refugee from Laos. His wife is a 
citizen of Taiwan. They entered the United States over 25 years ago as 
tourists and established residency in San Bruno, California. Because 
they overstayed the terms of their temporary visas, they now face 
deportation from the United States.
  After living here for so many years, removal from the United States 
would not come easily or perhaps without tearing this family apart. The 
Liangs have three children born in this country: Wesley, 17 years old, 
Bruce, 13 years old, and Eva, 11 years old. Young Wesley suffers from 
asthma and has a history of social and emotional anxiety.
  The immigration judge who presided over the Liangs' case in 1997 
concluded that there was no question that the Liang children would be 
adversely impacted if they were required to leave their relatives and 
friends behind in California to follow their parents to Taiwan, a 
country whose language and culture is unfamiliar to them.
  I can only imagine how much more they would be adversely impacted now 
given the passage of 9 more years.
  The Liangs have filed annual income tax returns; established a 
successful business, Fong Yong Restaurant, in the United States; are 
home owners, and are financially successful. Since they arrived in the 
United States, they have pursued and, to a degree, achieved the 
American Dream.

[[Page 136]]

  Mr. and Mrs. Liang's quest to legalize their immigration status began 
in 1993 when they filed for relief from deportation before an 
immigration judge.
  The Immigration and Naturalization Service, however, did not act on 
their application until nearly 5 years later, in 1997, after which time 
the immigration laws had significantly changed.
  According to the immigration judge, had the INS acted on their 
application for relief from deportation in a timely manner, they would 
have qualified for suspension of deportation, given that they were 
long-term residents of this country with U.S. citizen children and 
other positive factors. By the time INS processed their application, 
however, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant 
Responsibility Act of 1996, which changed the requirements for relief 
from removal to the Liangs' disadvantage.
  I supported the changes of the 1996 law, but I believe sometimes 
there are exceptions which merit special consideration. The Liangs are 
such a couple and family. Perhaps what distinguishes this family from 
many others is that through hard work and perseverance, Mr. Liang has 
achieved a significant degree of success in the United States while 
battling a severe form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
  According to his psychologist, this disorder stems from the 
persecution he, his family and community experienced in his native 
country of Laos during the Vietnam War.
  Throughout his childhood and adolescence, Mr. Liang was exposed to 
numerous traumatic experiences, including the murder of his mother by 
the North Vietnamese and frequent episodes of wartime violence. He also 
routinely witnessed the brutal persecution and deaths of others in his 
village. In 1975, he was granted refugee status in Taiwan.
  The emotional impact of Mr. Liang's experiences in his war-torn 
native country has been profound and continues to haunt him. His 
psychologist has also indicated that he suffers from severe clinical 
depression, which has been exacerbated by the prospect of being 
deported to Taiwan, where on account of his nationality, he believes he 
and his family would be treated as second-class citizens.
  Moreover, Mr. Liang believes that the pursuit of further mental 
health treatment in Taiwan would only exacerbate the stigma of being an 
outsider in a country whose language he does not speak. Given those 
prospects, he also fears the impact such a stigma would have on the 
well-being and future of his children.
  Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to 
support this private relief bill on behalf of the Liangs. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 122

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

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law 
     or any order, for the purposes of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Robert Liang and 
     Alice Liang shall be deemed to have been lawfully admitted 
     to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be eligible 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
     under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1255).
       (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall 
     apply only if the applications for issuance of immigrant 
     visas or the applications for adjustment of status are filed 
     with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of immigrant visas to Robert Liang and Alice Liang, the 
     Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent fiscal year, 
     the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 
     to natives of the country of birth of Robert Liang and Alice 
     Liang under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)), or, if applicable, the total number 
     of immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of birth of Robert Liang and Alice Liang under 
     section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 123. A bill for the relief of Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda 
De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia Aranda; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation 
to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jose Buendia Balderas, 
his wife, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and their daughter, Ana Laura 
Buendia Aranda, Mexican nationals who have been living and working in 
the Fresno area of California for over 20 years.
  Jose Buendia is a remarkable individual who epitomizes the American 
dream. His father worked as an agricultural laborer in the Bracero 
program over 25 years ago. In 1981, Jose followed his father to the 
United States--where he worked in the shadows to help provide for his 
family in Mexico.
  Since then, Jose has moved from working as a landscaper to 
construction, where he is now a valued employee of Bone Construction in 
Reedley, California. He has been employed by this cement company for 
the past 8 years. Although he knew nothing about construction when he 
began working in the field, he was disciplined and persistent in his 
training and is now a lead foreman.
  His employer, Timothy Bone, says Mr. Buendia is a ``reliable, 
hardworking and conscientious'' employee. In fact, it was Mr. Bone who 
contacted my office to seek relief for Mr. Buendia.
  Alicia Buendia, Jose Buendia's wife, has been working as a seasonal 
fruit packer for several years. The family has consistently paid all of 
their taxes. Recently, they paid off their mortgage and today, they are 
debt free. They have health insurance, savings and retirement accounts, 
participate in the company profit-sharing company, and support their 
family here and in Mexico. In short, they are living the American 
dream.
  Their daughter, Ana Laura, is an outstanding student. She earned a 
4.0 GPA at Reedley High School and was awarded an academic scholarship 
to the University of California-Berkeley. Unfortunately, because of her 
immigration status, she was unable to accept the scholarship and her 
parents now pay full out-of-state tuition for her to attend the 
University of California-Irvine. She is now completing her second year 
there.
  Their son, Jose, is a U.S. citizen, and graduated high school with a 
3.85 grade point average and honors, and is currently an engineering 
student at Reedley Junior College. For both Jose and Ana Laura, the 
United States is the only country they know.
  What makes the story of the Buendias so tragic is that they would 
have been eligible to correct their illegal status but for the 
unscrupulous practices of their former immigration attorney.
  Because Mr. Buendia has been in this country for so long, he 
qualified for legalization pursuant to the Immigration and Reform 
Control Act of 1986. Unfortunately, his legalization application was 
never acted upon because his attorney, Jose Velez, was convicted of 
fraudulently submitting legalization and Special Agricultural Worker 
applications.
  This criminal conduct tainted all of Mr. Velez's clients. Although 
Mr. Buendia's application was found not to contain any fraudulent 
documentation, it was submitted while his lawyer was under 
investigation. The result was that Mr. Buendia was unable to be 
interviewed and obtain legal status.
  To complicate matters, it took the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service nearly 7 years to determine that Mr. Buendia's application 
contained no fraudulent information. In the meantime, the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service reinterpreted the law and determined that he 
was no longer eligible for relief because he had left the United States 
briefly when he married his wife.
  Despite these setbacks, the Buendia family has continued to seek 
legal status. They believed they were successful when an immigration 
judge granted the family relief based on the hardship their U.S. 
citizen son would face if his family was deported to Mexico. 
Unfortunately, the government appealed the

[[Page 137]]

judge's decision and had it overturned by the Board of Immigration 
Appeals.
  Despite the problems with adjusting their legal status, this family 
has forged ahead and continued to play a meaningful role in their 
community. They have worked hard. They have invested in their 
neighborhood. They are active in the PTA and their local church.
  I believe the Buendia family should be allowed to continue to live in 
this country that has become their own. If this legislation is 
approved, the Buendias will be able to continue to contribute 
significantly to the United States. It is my hope that Congress passes 
this private legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 123

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and 
     Ana Laura Buendia Aranda shall each be eligible for issuance 
     of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 
     an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
     filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia 
     Aranda De Buendia, or Ana Laura Buendia Aranda enter the 
     United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), Jose Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De 
     Buendia, or Ana Laura Buendia Aranda, as appropriate, shall 
     be considered to have entered and remained lawfully in the 
     United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of status 
     under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of 
     an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status 
     is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jose Buendia 
     Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia 
     Aranda, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by 3, during the current or next following 
     fiscal year--
       (1) the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
     available to natives of the country of birth of Jose Buendia 
     Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura Buendia 
     Aranda under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)); or
       (2) if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that 
     are made available to natives of the country of birth of Jose 
     Buendia Balderas, Alicia Aranda De Buendia, and Ana Laura 
     Buendia Aranda under section 202(e) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 124. A bill for the relief of Shigeru Yamada; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief 
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Shigeru 
Yamada, a 24-year-old Japanese national who lives in Chula Vista, 
California. The House passed a private relief bill on behalf of Mr. 
Yamada last year, but unfortunately we were unable to move the bill in 
the Senate before the end of the 110th Congress.
  I have decided to re-introduce a private bill on his behalf because I 
believe that Mr. Yamada represents a model American citizen, for whom 
removal from this country would represent an unfair hardship. Without 
this legislation, Mr. Yamada will be forced to return to a country in 
which he lacks any linguistic, cultural or family ties.
  Mr. Yamada legally entered the United States with his mother and two 
sisters in 1992 at the young age of 10. The family was fleeing from Mr. 
Yamada's alcoholic father, who had been physically abusive to his 
mother, the children and even his own parents. Since then, he has had 
no contact with his father and is unsure if he is even alive. 
Tragically, Mr. Yamada experienced further hardship when his mother was 
killed in a car crash in 1995. Orphaned at the age of 13, Mr. Yamada 
spent time living with his aunt before moving to Chula Vista to live 
with a close friend of his late mother.
  The death of his mother marked more than a personal tragedy for Mr. 
Yamada; it also served to impede the process for him to legalize his 
status. At the time of her death, Mr. Yamada's family was living 
legally in the United States. His mother had acquired a student visa 
for herself and her children qualified as her dependants. Her death 
revoked his legal status in the United States.
  In addition, Mr. Yamada's mother was engaged to an American citizen 
at the time of her death. Had she survived, her son would likely have 
become an American citizen through this marriage.
  Mr. Yamada has exhausted all administrative options under our current 
immigration system. Throughout high school, he contacted attorneys in 
the hopes of legalizing his status, but his attempts were unsuccessful. 
Unfortunately, time has run out and, for Mr. Yamada, the only option 
available to him today is private relief legislation.
  For several reasons, it would be tragic for Mr. Yamada to be deported 
from the United States and forced to return to Japan.
  First, since arriving in the United States, Mr. Yamada has lived as a 
model American. He graduated with honors from Eastlake High School in 
2000, where he excelled in both academics and athletics. Academically, 
he earned a number of awards including being named an ``Outstanding 
English Student'' his freshman year, an All-American Scholar, and 
earning the United States National Minority Leadership Award.
  His teacher and coach, Mr. John describes him as being ``responsible, 
hard working, organized, honest, caring and very dependable.'' His role 
as the vice president of the Associated Student Body his senior year is 
an indication of Mr. Yamada's high level of leadership, as well as, his 
popularity and trustworthiness among his peers.
  As an athlete, Mr. Yamada was named the ``Most Inspirational Player 
of the Year'' in junior varsity baseball and football, as well as, 
varsity football. His football coach, Mr. Jose Mendoza, expressed his 
admiration by saying that he has ``seen in Shigeru Yamada the 
responsibility, dedication and loyalty that the average American holds 
to be virtuous.''
  Second, Mr. Yamada has distinguished himself as a local volunteer. As 
a member of the Eastlake High School Link Crew, he helped freshman find 
their way around campus, offered tutoring and mentoring services, and 
set an example of how to be a successful member of the student body. 
After graduating from high school, he volunteered his time for 4 years 
as the coach of the Eastlake High School Girl's softball team. The 
former head coach, who has since retired, Dr. Charles Sorge, describes 
him as an individual full of ``integrity'' who understands that as a 
coach it is important to work as a ``team player.''
  His level of commitment to the team was further illustrated to Dr. 
Sorge when he discovered, halfway through the season, that Mr. Yamada's 
commute to and from practice was 2 hours long each way. It takes an 
individual with character to volunteer his time to coach and never 
bring up the issue of how long his commute takes him each day. Dr. 
Sorge hopes that, once Mr. Yamada legalizes his immigration status, he 
will be formally hired to continue coaching the team.
  Third, sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan would be an immense hardship 
for him and his family here. Mr. Yamada does not speak Japanese. He is 
unaware of the nation's current cultural trends.
  And, he has no immediate family members that he knows of in Japan. 
All of his family lives in California. Sending Mr. Yamada back to Japan 
would serve to split his family apart and separate him from everyone 
and everything that he knows.
  His sister contends that her younger brother would be ``lost'' if he 
had to return to live in Japan on his own. It is

[[Page 138]]

unlikely that he would be able to find any gainful employment in Japan 
due to his inability to speak or read the language.
  As a member of the Chula Vista community, Mr. Yamada has 
distinguished himself as an honorable individual. His teacher, Mr. 
Robert Hughes, describes him as being an ``upstanding `All-American' 
young man''. Until being picked up during a routine check of riders' 
immigration status on a city bus, he had never been arrested or 
convicted of any crime. Mr. Yamada is not, and has never been, a burden 
on the State. He has never received any Federal or State assistance.
  With his hard work and giving attitude, Shigeru Yamada represents the 
ideal American citizen. Although born in Japan, he is truly American in 
every other sense.
  Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to 
support this private relief bill on behalf of Mr. Yamada. Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 124

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR SHIGERU YAMADA.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Shigeru Yamada shall be eligible for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Shigeru Yamada enters the 
     United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), Shigeru Yamada shall be considered to have 
     entered and remained lawfully and shall be eligible for 
     adjustment of status under section 245 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is 
     filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Shigeru 
     Yamada, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by 1, during the current or subsequent 
     fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of Shigeru 
     Yamada under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the 
     total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
     natives of the country of birth of Shigeru Yamada under 
     section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 125. A bill for the relief of Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria 
Del Refugio Plascencia; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer legislation to 
provide lawful permanent residence status to Alfredo Plascencia Lopez 
and his wife, Maria del Refugio Plascencia, Mexican nationals who live 
in the San Bruno area of California.
  I have decided to offer legislation on their behalf because I believe 
that, without it, this hardworking couple and their four United States 
citizen children would endure an immense and unfair hardship. Indeed, 
without this legislation, this family may not remain a family for much 
longer.
  The Plascencia's have worked for years to adjust their status through 
the appropriate legal channels, only to have their efforts thwarted by 
inattentive legal counsel. Repeatedly, the Plascencia's lawyer refused 
to return their calls or otherwise communicate with them in anyway. He 
also failed to forward crucial immigration documents, or even notify 
the Plascencias that he had them. Because of the poor representation 
they received, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia only became aware that they had 
been ordered to leave the country 15 days prior to their deportation.
  Although the family was stunned and devastated by this discovery, 
they acted quickly to secure legitimate counsel and to file the 
appropriate paperwork to delay their deportation to determine if any 
other legal action could be taken.
  For several reasons, it would be tragic for this family to be removed 
from the United States.
  First, since arriving in the United States in 1988, Mr. and Mrs. 
Plascencia have proven themselves to be a responsible and civic-minded 
couple who share our American values of hard work, dedication to 
family, and devotion to community.
  Second, Mr. Plascencia has been gainfully employed at Vince's 
Shellfish for the over 14 years, where his dedication and willingness 
to learn have propelled him from part-time work to a managerial 
position. He now overseas the market's entire packing operation and 
several employees.
  The president of the market, in one of the several dozen letters I 
have received in support of Mr. Plascencia, referred to him as ``a 
valuable and respected employee'' who ``handles himself in a very 
professional manner'' and serves as ``a role model'' to other 
employees. Others who have written to me praising Mr. Plascencia's job 
performance have referred to him as ``gifted,'' ``trusted,'' 
``honest,'' and ``reliable.''
  Third, like her husband, Mrs. Plascencia has distinguished herself as 
a medical assistant at a Kaiser Permanente hospital in the Bay Area. 
Not satisfied with working as a maid at a local hotel, Mrs. Plascencia 
went to school, earned her high school equivalency degree and improved 
her skills to become a medical assistant.
  Those who have written to me in support of Mrs. Plascencia, of which 
there are several, have described her work as ``responsible,'' 
``efficient,'' and ``compassionate.''
  In fact, Kaiser Permanente's Director of Internal Medicine, Nurse 
Rose Carino, wrote to say that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an asset to the 
community and exemplifies the virtues we Americans extol: hardworking, 
devoted to her family, trustworthy and loyal, [and] involved in her 
community. She and her family are a solid example of the type of 
immigrant that America should welcome wholeheartedly.''
  Mrs. Carino went on to write that Mrs. Plascencia is ``an excellent 
employee and role model for her colleagues. She works in a very 
demanding unit, Oncology, and is valued and depended on by the 
physicians she works with.''
  Together, Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia have used their professional 
successes to realize many of the goals dreamed of by all Americans. 
They saved up and bought a home. They own a car. They have good health 
care benefits and they each have begun saving for retirement. They want 
to send their children to college and give them an even better life.
  This legislation is important because it would preserve these 
achievements and ensure that Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia will be able to 
make substantive contributions to the community in the future.
  It is important, also, because of the positive impact it will have on 
the couple's children, each of whom is a United States citizen and each 
of whom is well on their way to becoming productive members of the Bay 
Area community.
  Christina, 17, is the Plascencia's oldest child, and an honor 
student. Erika, 14, and Alfredo, Jr., 12, have worked hard at their 
studies and received praise and good grades from their teachers. In 
fact, the principal of Erika's school has recognized her as the ``Most 
Artistic'' student in her class. Erika's teacher, Mrs. Nascon, remarked 
on a report card, ``Erika is a bright spot in my classroom.''
  The Plascencia's also have two young children: 6-year-old Daisy and 
2-year-old Juan-Pablo.
  Removing Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia from the United States would be 
tragic for their children. Children who were born in the United States 
and who through no fault of their own have been thrust into a situation 
that has the potential to dramatically alter their lives.
  It would be especially tragic for the Plascencia's older children--
Christina,

[[Page 139]]

Erika, and Alfredo--to have to leave the United States. They are old 
enough to understand that they are leaving their schools, their 
teachers, their friends, and their home. They would leave everything 
that is familiar to them.
  Their parents would find themselves in Mexico without a job and 
without a house. The children would have to acclimate to a different 
culture, language, and way of life.
  The only other option would be for Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia to leave 
their children here with relatives. This separation is a choice which 
no parents should have to make.
  Many of the words I have used to describe Mr. and Mrs. Plascencia are 
not my own. They are the words of the Americans who live and work with 
the Plascencias day in and day out and who find them to embody the 
American spirit.
  I have sponsored this legislation, and asked my colleagues to support 
it, because I believe that this is a spirit that we must nurture 
wherever we can find it. Forcing the Plascencias to leave the United 
States would extinguish that spirit. I ask my colleagues to support 
this private bill on behalf of the Plascencia family.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 125

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Alfredo Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio 
     Plascencia shall each be eligible for the issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Alfredo Plascencia Lopez or 
     Maria Del Refugio Plascencia enter the United States before 
     the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Alfredo 
     Plascencia Lopez or Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, as 
     appropriate, shall be considered to have entered and remained 
     lawfully and shall be eligible for adjustment of status under 
     section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1255) as of the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of 
     immigrant visas or the application for adjustment of status 
     are filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of immigrant visas or permanent residence to Alfredo 
     Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia, the 
     Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by 2, during the current or subsequent fiscal year, 
     the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 
     to natives of the country of birth of Alfredo Plascencia 
     Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia under section 203(a) 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, 
     if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of Alfredo 
     Plascencia Lopez and Maria Del Refugio Plascencia under 
     section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 126. A bill for the relief of Claudia Marquez Rico; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am offering today private relief 
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Claudia 
Marquez Rico, a Mexican national living in Redwood City, CA.
  Born in Jalisco, Mexico, Claudia was brought to the United States by 
her parents 16 years ago.
  Claudia was just 6 years old at the time. She has two younger 
brothers, Jose and Omar, who came to America with her, and a sister, 
Maribel, who was born in California and is a U.S. Citizen. America is 
the only home they know.
  Eight years ago that home was visited by tragedy. As Mr. and Mrs. 
Marquez were driving to work early on the morning of October 4, 2000, 
they were both killed in a horrible traffic accident when their car 
collided with a truck on an isolated rural road.
  The children went to live with their aunt and uncle, Hortencia and 
Patricio Alcala. The Alcalas are a generous and loving couple. They are 
U.S. citizens with two children of their own and took the Marquez 
children in and did all they could to comfort them in their grief. They 
supervised their schooling, and made sure they received the counseling 
they needed, too. The family is active in their parish at Buen Pastor 
Catholic Church, and Patricio Alcala serves as a youth soccer coach. In 
2001, the Alcalas were appointed the legal guardians of the Marquez 
children.
  Sadly, the Marquez family received poor legal representation. At the 
time of their parents' death, Claudia and Jose were minors, and 
qualified for special immigrant juvenile status. This category was 
enacted by Congress to protect children like them from the hardship 
that would result from deportation under such extraordinary 
circumstances, when a State court deems them to be dependents due to 
abuse, abandonment or neglect.
  Today, their younger brother Omar is a U.S. Citizen, due to his 
adjustment as a special immigrant juvenile. Unfortunately, the family's 
previous lawyer failed to secure this relief for Claudia, and she has 
now reached the age of majority without having resolved her immigration 
status.
  I should note that their former lawyer, Walter Pineda, is currently 
answering charges on 29 counts of professional incompetence and 5 
counts of moral turpitude for mishandling immigration cases and appears 
on his way to being disbarred.
  I am offering legislation on Claudia's behalf because I believe that, 
without it, this family would endure an immense and unfair hardship. 
Indeed, without this legislation, this family will not remain a family 
for much longer.
  Despite the adversity they encountered, Claudia finished school. She 
supports herself, her 17-year-old sister, Maribel, and her younger 
brother Omar. Again, both Maribel and Omar are now U.S. Citizens.
  Claudia has no close relatives in Mexico. She has never visited 
Mexico, and she was so young when she was brought to America that she 
has no memories of it. How can we expect her to start a new life there 
now?
  It would be a grave injustice to add to this family's misfortune by 
tearing these siblings apart. This is a close family, and they have 
come to rely on each other heavily in the absence of their deceased 
parents. This bill will prevent the added tragedy of another wrenching 
separation.
  Given these extraordinary and unique facts, I ask my colleagues to 
support this private relief bill on behalf of Claudia Rico.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 126

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

     SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR CLAUDIA MARQUEZ 
                   RICO.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Claudia Marquez Rico shall be eligible for issuance of 
     an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Claudia Marquez Rico enters 
     the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), she shall be considered to have entered and 
     remained lawfully and, if otherwise eligible, shall be 
     eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is 
     filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant

[[Page 140]]

     visa or permanent residence to Claudia Marquez Rico, the 
     Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by 1, during the current or subsequent fiscal year, 
     the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 
     to natives of the country of birth of Claudia Marquez Rico 
     under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of birth of Claudia Marquez Rico under section 202(e) 
     of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
       (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for 
     Certain Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and 
     sisters of Claudia Marquez Rico shall not, by virtue of such 
     relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status 
     under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
     seq.).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 127. A bill for the relief of Jacqueline W. Coats; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I offer today private relief 
legislation to provide lawful permanent residence status to Jacqueline 
Coats, a 28-year-old widow currently living in San Francisco.
  Mrs. Coats came to the U.S. in 2001 from Kenya on a student visa to 
study Mass Communications at San Jose State University. Her visa status 
lapsed in 2003, and the Department of Homeland Security began 
deportation proceedings against her.
  Mrs. Coats married Marlin Coats on April 17, 2006, after dating for 
several years. The couple was happily married and planning to start a 
family when, on May 13, Mr. Coats tragically died in a heroic attempt 
to save two young boys from drowning.
  The couple had been on a Mother's Day outing at Ocean Beach with some 
of Mr. Coats' nephews when they heard cries for help. Having worked as 
a lifeguard in the past, Mr. Coats instinctively dove into the water. 
The two children were saved with the help of a rescue crew, but Mr. 
Coats, caught in a riptide, died. Mrs. Coats received a medal honoring 
her husband.
  Four days before Mr. Coats' death, the couple prepared and signed an 
application for a green card at their attorney's office. Unfortunately 
the petition was not filed until after his death, rendering it invalid. 
Mrs. Coats currently has a hearing before an immigration judge in San 
Francisco on August 24, but her attorney has informed my staff that she 
has no relief available to her and will be ordered deported.
  Mrs. Coats, devastated by the loss of her husband, is now caught in a 
battle for her right to stay in America. At a recent news conference 
with her lawyer, Thip Ark, she explained of her situation, ``I feel 
like I have nothing to live for. I have nothing to go home to . . . 
I've been here four years . . . It would be like starting a new life.''
  Ms. Ark explains that Mrs. Coats is extremely close with her late 
husband's family, with whom she lives in San Leandro, California. Mrs. 
Coats has said that her husband's large family has become her own. 
Ramona Burton of San Francisco, one of Marlin Coats' seven brothers and 
sisters explains, ``She spent her first American Christmas with us, her 
first American Thanksgiving . . . I can't imagine looking around and 
not seeing her there. She needs to be there.''
  The San Francisco and Bay Area community has rallied strong support 
for Mrs. Coats. The San Francisco chapters of the NAACP, the San 
Francisco Board of Supervisors, and the San Francisco Police 
Department, have all passed resolutions in support of Mrs. Coats' right 
to remain in the country.
  Unfortunately, if this private relief bill is not approved, this 
young woman, and the Coats family, will face yet another disorienting 
and heartbreaking tragedy. Mrs. Coats will be deported to Kenya, a 
country she has not lived in since she was 21. In her time of grieving, 
she will be forced to leave her home, her job with AC Transit, her new 
family, and everything she has known for the past 5 years.
  I cannot think of a compelling reason why the United States should 
not allow this young widow to continue the green card process. Had her 
husband lived, Mrs. Coats would have filed the papers without 
difficulty. It was because of her husband's selfless and heroic act 
that Mrs. Coats must now struggle to remain in the country. As one 
concerned California constituent wrote to me, ``If ever there was a 
case where common fairness, morality and decency should reign over 
legal technicalities, this is it. We, as a country, need to reward 
heroism and good.''
  I believe that we can reward the late Mr. Coats for his noble actions 
by granting his wife citizenship. It is what he intended for her. It 
can even be argued that a green card for his wife was one of his dying 
wishes, as the papers were signed just 4 days prior to his death.
  For these reasons, I reintroduce this private relief immigration bill 
and ask my colleagues to support it on behalf of Mrs. Coats.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 127

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be eligible for issuance of 
     an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of an 
     alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon filing 
     an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jacqueline W. Coats enters 
     the United States before the filing deadline specified in 
     subsection (c), Jacqueline W. Coats shall be considered to 
     have entered and remained lawfully in the United States and 
     shall be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 
     of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
     immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is 
     filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jacqueline W. 
     Coats, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper 
     officer to reduce by 1, during the current or subsequent 
     fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 
     made available to natives of the country of birth of 
     Jacqueline W. Coats under section 203(a) of the Immigration 
     and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the 
     total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
     natives of the country of birth of Jacqueline W. Coats under 
     section 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 128. A bill for the relief of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, 
Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing private 
immigration relief legislation to provide lawful permanent residence 
status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno and Micaela Lopez Martinez and 
their daughter, Adilene Martinez--Mexican nationals now living in San 
Francisco, California.
  This family embodies the true American success story and I believe 
they merit Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary 
form of relief as a private bill.
  Mr. Martinez came to the United States eighteen years ago from 
Mexico. He started working as a bus boy in restaurants in San 
Francisco. In 1990, he began working as a cook at Palio D'Asti, an 
award winning Italian restaurant in San Francisco.
  According to the people who worked with him, he ``never made 
mistakes, never lost his temper, and never seemed to sweat.''
  Over the years, Jose Martinez has worked his way through the ranks. 
Today, he is the sous chef at Palio, where he is respected by everyone 
in the restaurant, from dishwashers to cooks, busboys to waiters, 
bartenders to managers.
  Mr. Martinez has unique skills: he is an excellent chef; he is 
bilingual; he is a leader in the workplace. He is described as ``an 
exemplary employee'' who is not only ``good at his job, but is also a 
great boss to his subordinates.''

[[Page 141]]

  He and his wife, Micaela, have made a home in San Francisco. Micaela 
has been working as a housekeeper. They have three daughters, two of 
whom are United States citizens. Their oldest child Adilene, 20, is 
undocumented. Adilene recently graduated from the Immaculate Conception 
Academy and is attending San Francisco City College.
  One of the most compelling reasons for allowing the family to remain 
in the United States is that they are eligible for a green card. 
Unfortunately, there is such a back log for green cards right now that 
even though he has a work permit, owns a home in San Francisco, works 
two jobs, and has been in the United States for twenty years with a 
clean record, he and his family will be deported.
  Mr. Martinez and his family have applied unsuccessfully for legal 
status several ways:
  In May 2002, Mr. and Mrs. Martinez filed for political asylum. Their 
case was denied and a subsequent application for a Cancellation of 
Removal was also denied because the immigration court judge could not 
find ``requisite hardship'' required for this relief.
  Ironically, the immigration judge who reviewed their case found that 
Mr. Martinez's culinary ability was a negative factor--as it indicated 
that he could find a job in Mexico.
  In 2001, his sister, who has legal status, petitioned for Mr. 
Martinez to get a green card. Unfortunately, because of the current 
green card backlog, Mr. Martinez has several years to wait before he is 
eligible for a green card.
  Finally, Daniel Scherotter, the executive chef and owner of Palio 
D'Asti, has petitioned for legal status for Mr. Martinez based on Mr. 
Martinez's unique skills as a chef. Although Mr. Martinez's work 
petition was approved by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 
there is a backlog on these visas, and Mr. Martinez is on a waiting 
list for a green card through this channel, as well.
  Mr. and Mrs. Martinez have no other administrative options available 
to them at this point and if deported, they will face a 5 to 10 year 
ban from returning to the United States. In addition, this bill remains 
the only means for Adilene to gain legal status.
  The Martinez family has become an important and valued part of their 
community. They are active members of their church, their children's 
school, and Comite de Padres Unido, a grassroots immigrant organization 
in California.
  They volunteer extensively--advocating for safe new parks in the 
community for the children, volunteering at their children's school, 
and working on a voter registration campaign, even though they are 
unable to vote themselves.
  In fact, I have received 46 letters of support from teachers, church 
members, and members of their community who attest to their honesty, 
responsibility, and long-standing commitment to their community. Their 
supporters include San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom; former Mayor 
Willie Brown; President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, 
Aaron Peskin; and the Director of Immigration Policy at the Immigrant 
Legal Resource Center, Mark Silverman.
  This family has truly embraced the American dream. I believe their 
continued presence in our country would do so much to enhance the 
values we hold dear. Enactment of the legislation I have reintroduced 
today will enable the Martinez family to continue to make significant 
contributions to their community as well as the United States.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 128

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

     SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
     (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, 
     Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez shall each be 
     deemed to have been lawfully admitted to, and remained in, 
     the United States, and shall be eligible for adjustment of 
     status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent 
     residence under section 245 of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application 
     for such adjustment of status.
       (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall 
     apply only if the application for adjustment of status is 
     filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting 
     of permanent resident status to Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, 
     Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez, the Secretary 
     of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, 
     during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total 
     number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 
     of the country of the birth of Jose Alberto Martinez Moreno, 
     Micaela Lopez Martinez, and Adilene Martinez under section 
     202(e) or 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1152(e) and 1153(a)), as applicable.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 129. A bill for the relief of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and 
Arthur Mkoyan; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private 
relief bill on behalf of Ruben Mkoian, his wife, Asmik Karapetian and 
their son, Arthur Mkoyan. The Mkoian family are Armenian nationals who 
have been living and working in Fresno, California, for over a decade.
  The story of the Mkoian family is compelling and I believe they merit 
Congress's special consideration for such an extraordinary form of 
relief as a private bill.
  Let me first start with how the Mkoian family arrived in the United 
States. While in Armenia, Mr. Mkoian worked as a police sergeant in a 
division dealing with vehicle licensing. As a result of his position, 
he was offered a bribe to register 20 stolen vehicles.
  He refused the bribe and reported the incident to the police chief. 
He later learned that his co-worker had registered the vehicles at the 
request of the chief.
  After he reported the offense, Mr. Mkoian's supervisor informed him 
that the department was to undergo an inspection. Mr. Mkoian was 
instructed to take a vacation during this time period. Mr. Mkoian 
believed that the inspection was a result of the complaint that he had 
filed with the higher authorities.
  During the inspection, however, Mr. Mkoian worked at a store that he 
owned rather than taking a vacation. During that time, individuals kept 
entering his store and attempted to damage it and break merchandise. 
When he threatened to call the police, he received threatening phone 
calls telling him to ``shut up'' or else he would ``regret it.'' Mr. 
Mkoian believed that these threats were related to the illegal vehicle 
registrations occurring in his department because he had nothing else 
to be silent about.
  Later that same month, three men grabbed his wife and attempted to 
kidnap his child, Arthur, on the street. Mrs. Mkoian was told that her 
husband should ``shut up.'' No one suffered any injuries from the 
incident. In October 1991, a bottle of gasoline was thrown into the 
Mkoian's residence and their house was burned down. The final incident 
occurred on April 1, 1992, when four or five men assaulted Mr. Mkoian 
in his store. He was beaten and hospitalized for 22 days.
  Following that experience, Mr. Mkoian left Armenia for Russia, and 
then came to the United States on a visitor's visa in search of a 
better life. Two years later he brought his wife Asmik and his then 3-
year-old son Arthur to the United States, also on visitor's visas. The 
family applied for political asylum, but the 9th Circuit Court of 
Appeals denied their request in January 2008. Thus, the family has no 
further legal recourse by which to remain in the country other than 
this bill.
  Since arriving in the United States, the family has thrived. Arthur 
is now 18 years old and the family has expanded to include Arsen, who 
is a U.S. citizen.
  Both Arthur and Arsen are very special children. In high school, 
Arthur

[[Page 142]]

maintained a 4.0 grade point average and was a valedictorian for the 
class of 2008. I first introduced this bill on his graduation day. 
Today, Arthur is a freshman at the University of California, Davis.
  Arsen is following in his older brother's footsteps. At age 12, he 
stands out among his peers and is on the honor roll at Tenaya Middle 
School in Fresno.
  In addition to raising two outstanding children, Mr. and Mrs. Mkoian 
have maintained steady jobs and have devoted time and energy into the 
community and their church. Mr. Mkoian is working at HB Medical 
Transportation, as a driver in Fresno.
  His wife, Asmik, has two jobs as a medical receptionist with Dr. 
Kumar in Fresno and as a sales clerk at Gottschalks Department Store. 
In addition, she has taken classes at Fresno Community College and has 
completed their Medical Assistant Program.
  The family are active members of the St. Paul Armenian Church, and 
Mr. Mkoian is a member of the PTA of the St. Paul Armenian Saturday 
School.
  There has been an outpouring of support for this family from their 
church, the schools their children attend, and the community at large.
  To date, we have received over 200 letters of support for the family 
in addition to numerous telephone calls. I also note that I have 
letters from both Congressman George Radanovich and Jim Costa, 
requesting that I offer this bill for the Mkoian family.
  I truly believe that this case warrants our compassion and our 
extraordinary consideration.
  I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. Mr. President, I 
ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 129

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

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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan 
     shall each be eligible for the issuance of an immigrant visa 
     or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully 
     admitted for permanent residence upon filing an application 
     for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of status to lawful 
     permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Ruben Mkoian, Asmik 
     Karapetian, or Arthur Mkoyan enters the United States before 
     the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), Ruben 
     Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, or Arthur Mkoyan, as appropriate, 
     shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully in 
     the United States and shall be eligible for adjustment of 
     status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (c) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) and 
     (b) shall apply only if the application for the issuance of 
     an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status 
     is filed with appropriate fees not later than 2 years after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an 
     immigrant visa or permanent resident status to Ruben Mkoian, 
     Asmik Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan, the Secretary of State 
     shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 3, during the 
     current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik Karapetian, and 
     Arthur Mkoyan under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the 
     total number of immigrant visas that are made available to 
     natives of the country of birth of Ruben Mkoian, Asmik 
     Karapetian, and Arthur Mkoyan under section 202(e) of such 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 130. A bill for the relief of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva 
Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing a private 
relief bill on behalf of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, his wife, Oliva 
Gonzalez Gonzalez, and their son, Jorge Rojas Gonzalez. The Rojas 
family members are Mexican nationals living in the San Jose area of 
California.
  The story of the Rojas family is compelling, and I believe they merit 
Congress' special consideration for such an extraordinary form of 
relief as a private bill.
  Mr. Rojas and his wife Ms. Gonzalez originally came to the United 
States in 1990 when their son Jorge Rojas, Jr. was just 2 years old. In 
1995, they left the country to attend a funeral, and then re-entered on 
visitors' visas.
  The family has since expanded to include a son, Alexis Rojas, now age 
16, and a daughter Tania Rojas, now age 14.
  Since arriving in the United States, this family has dedicated 
themselves to community involvement, a strong work ethic and 
volunteerism. They have been paying taxes since their arrival in 1990. 
The family has been described by their friends and colleagues as a 
``model American family.'' I would like to tell you some more about 
each member of the Rojas family.
  Mr. Rojas is a hard-working individual who has been employed by 
Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance in San Jose, California, for the 
past 14 years. Currently, Mr. Rojas works on commercial landscaping 
projects. He is well-respected by his supervisor and his peers.
  In addition to supporting his family, Jorge has volunteered his time 
and talents to provide modern green landscaping and a recreational 
jungle gym to Sherman Oaks Community Charter School, where his two 
youngest children attend school.
  Ms. Gonzalez, in addition to raising her three children, has been 
very active in the local community. She has worked to help other 
immigrants assimilate to American life by working as a translator and a 
tutor for immigrant children at Sherman Oaks Community Charter School 
and the Y.M.C.A. Kids after-school program.
  She has also coached soccer teams, and has recently directed a 
Thanksgiving food drive. Ms. Gonzalez also devotes many hours of her 
time to the organization People Acting in Community Together, PACT, 
where she works to prevent crime, gangs and drug dealing in San Jose 
neighborhoods and schools.
  Perhaps one of the most compelling reasons for permitting the family 
to remain in the United States is the impact their deportation would 
have on their three children. Two of the children, Alexis and Tania, 
are U.S. citizens. Jorge Rojas, Jr. has lived in the United States 
since he was a toddler. For these children, this country is the only 
country they really know.
  Jorge Rojas, Jr., who entered the United States as an infant with his 
parents, is now 20 and is currently working at Jamba Juice. He 
graduated from Del Mar High School in 2007 and is currently taking 
classes at San Jose City College.
  Alexis and Tania are students at Sherman Oaks Community Charter 
School. They are described by their teachers as ``fantastic, wonderful, 
and gifted'' students. In fact, the principal at Sherman Oaks has 
described all three of the children as ``honest, hard-working academic 
honor students'' and have commended all of them for their on-campus 
leadership.
  It seems so clear to me that this family has embraced the American 
dream, and their continued presence in our country would do so much to 
enhance the values we hold dear. I have received 30 letters from the 
community in support of this family. Enactment of the legislation I 
have reintroduced today will enable the Rojas family to continue to 
make significant contributions to their community as well as the United 
States.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support this private bill. I 
ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 130

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

[[Page 143]]



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

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151), Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and 
     Jorge Rojas Gonzalez shall each be eligible for the issuance 
     of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status to that of 
     an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
     filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under 
     section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) or for adjustment of 
     status to lawful permanent resident.
       (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva 
     Gonzalez Gonzalez, or Jorge Rojas Gonzalez enters the United 
     States before the filing deadline specified in subsection 
     (c), Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, or Jorge 
     Rojas Gonzalez, as appropriate, shall be considered to have 
     entered and remained lawfully in the United States and shall 
     be eligible for adjustment of status under section 245 of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) as of the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--
     Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application 
     for the issuance of an immigrant visa or the application for 
     adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later 
     than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon granting an 
     immigrant visa or permanent residence to Jorge Rojas 
     Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez, 
     the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to 
     reduce by 3, during the current or subsequent fiscal year, 
     the total number of immigrant visas that are made available 
     to natives of the country of birth of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, 
     Oliva Gonzalez Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez under 
     section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1153(a)) or, if applicable, the total number of 
     immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the 
     country of birth of Jorge Rojas Gutierrez, Oliva Gonzalez 
     Gonzalez, and Jorge Rojas Gonzalez under section 202(e) of 
     such Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 131. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act to provide for 
enhanced disclosure under an open end credit plan; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Credit Card 
Minimum Payment Notification Act.
  This bill would help American consumers by requiring banks to notify 
credit card holders of the true cost if they choose to make the minimum 
payment each month.
  Americans today own more credit cards than ever before. The average 
American has approximately four credit cards. In 2007, 1 in 7 Americans 
held more than 10 cards.
  Unsurprisingly, this increase in credit card ownership has resulted 
in a dramatic increase in credit card debt.
  Over the past 2 decades, Americans' combined credit card debt has 
nearly tripled--from $238 billion in 1989 to a staggering $971 billion 
in 2008.
  Today, the average American household has approximately $10,678 in 
credit card debt, up 29 percent from 2000.
  Among credit card users, 55 percent carry a balance on their credit 
card, a 2 percent increase from last year.
  Approximately 1 in 6 families with credit cards pays only the minimum 
due every month.
  Young Americans are using credit cards to finance everything from 
daily expenses to college tuition. Forty-one percent of college 
students have a credit card, and, of those, only 65 percent pay their 
bills in full every month.
  Over the past year, as economic conditions have worsened, it has 
become even harder for families to pay off their debt. Whether it is a 
mortgage, or tuition, or medical expenses, people are finding it harder 
than ever to meet all of their expenses.
  In July of this year, 28 percent of people surveyed reported that 
their ability to pay off their credit card balances has become more 
strained.
  This increasing debt is contributing to more and more Americans 
filing for bankruptcy.
  Ever since the Bankruptcy Reform Act was enacted in 2005, non-
business bankruptcies have been increasing at a rapid pace. The numbers 
this year already show a staggering hike. Between September 2007 and 
September 2008, Americans filed over one million non-business 
bankruptcies, up 30 percent from the previous year.
  Many of these personal bankruptcies are people who are turning to 
credit cards to finance their expenses. Today's filers have even more 
credit card debt than usual--sometimes because they have been 
struggling to pay a mortgage and have started using credit cards for 
daily expenses.
  One family, the Forsyths, found themselves in financial trouble after 
moving to a new State for a better job opportunity. Unable to sell 
their old house, they rented. But when the renter stopped making 
payments, the family became overwhelmed with two mortgage payments. 
Credit cards helped at first--providing payment for food, utilities, 
and clothes--but the family quickly accumulated $20,000 in debt and was 
left with no alternative other than bankruptcy.
  The benefits offered by credit cards are attractive, but these cards 
also pose enormous financial risk. Dianne McLeod discovered this in a 
painful way after back-to-back medical emergencies depleted her 
finances. Although credit cards initially enabled her to maintain her 
lifestyle, before long these cards and two mortgages meant that she 
later found that she was spending more than 40 percent of her monthly 
income on interest payments, in addition to thousands of dollars 
annually in fees.
  Today, credit cardholders receive no information on the impact of 
carrying a balance with compounding interest. As a result, too often 
individuals make only the minimum payment. After a few years, they find 
that the interest on the debt is almost twice the amount of their 
original purchases--and they do not know what to do about it.
  I first introduced the Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act 
during the debate on the 2005 bankruptcy bill. As I said then, I 
believe the bill failed to balance responsibility and fairness. 
Consumers should not be so harshly penalized when they do not have the 
basic tools and information they need to make informed choices.
  The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would help prevent 
this problem by requiring credit card companies to add two items to 
each consumer's monthly credit card statement:
  A general notice that would read ``Making only the minimum payment 
will increase the interest you pay and the time it takes to repay your 
balance.''
  An individualized notice to credit card holders that specifies 
clearly on their bill how much time it will take to repay their debt 
and the total amount they will pay if they only make the minimum 
payments.
  For consumers with variable rate cards, the bill would also require 
companies to provide a toll-free number where cardholders can access 
credit-counseling services.
  The disclosure requirements in the bill would only apply if the 
consumer has a minimum payment that is less than 10 percent of the debt 
on the credit card. Otherwise, none of these disclosures would be 
required on their statement.
  Last year, a Gallup--Experian poll found that about 11 percent of 
credit cardholders consistently make only the minimum payment on their 
cards each month.
  Consider what this could mean for the average household.
  For example, the U.S. average credit card debt is $10,678. The 
average fixed credit card interest rate is approximately 12 percent. If 
the 2 percent minimum payment is all that is paid on its debt each 
month, it would take more than 31 years to pay off the bill and the 
total cost would be $21,052.66--and that's just the minimum assuming 
that the family didn't ever charge another dime on that bill.
  In other words, the family would need to pay $10,374.66 in interest 
just to repay $10,678 in original debt.
  For individuals or families with more than average debt, the pitfalls 
are even greater. $20,000 of credit card debt at the average 12 percent 
interest rate will take over 36 years and more than $28,261 to pay off 
if only the minimum payments are made.
  Twelve percent is relatively low, average interest rate. Interest 
rates

[[Page 144]]

around 20 percent are not uncommon on credit cards, and penalty 
interest rates can reach as high as 32 percent.
  A family that has the average debt with a 20 percent interest rate 
and makes the minimum payments will need a lifetime--over 85 years--and 
$62,158 to pay off the initial $10,678 bill. That's $51,480 just in 
interest--an amount that approaches 5 times the original debt.
  Credit cards are an important part of everyday life, and they help 
the economy operate more smoothly by giving consumers and merchants a 
reliable, convenient way to exchange funds. But the bottom line is that 
for many consumers, the two percent minimum payment is a financial 
trap.
  The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act is designed to 
ensure that people are not caught in this trap through lack of 
information.
  Last month, the Federal Reserve Board approved new rules that will 
improve disclosures, but the rules do not go far enough. Under the 
rules, starting July 1, 2010, credit card companies will have to warn 
consumers about the effect of making minimum payments on the length of 
time it will take to pay off their balances. But the warnings may be 
only examples and will not show the effect on the amount that consumers 
pay over time.
  Before approving the final rules, the Federal Reserve Board 
interviewed consumers who typically carried credit card balances. Those 
consumers found disclosures most helpful when they provided specific 
information and included warnings about the amount that would have to 
be paid over time.
  The Credit Card Minimum Payment Notification Act would provide the 
straightforward disclosure that consumers find most helpful and most 
effective.
  This disclosure will ensure that consumers know exactly what it means 
for them to carry a balance and make minimum payments, so they can make 
informed decisions on credit card use and repayment.
  In addition, the burden on banks will be minimal. Calculations like 
these are purely formulaic. Credit card companies already complete 
similar calculations to determine credit risk and when they tell 
consumers what their required minimum payment is each month.
  The harsh effects of the 2005 bankruptcy bill are becoming apparent. 
During the debate over that bill, I had hoped that Congress would 
succeed in balancing the need to incentivize consumers to act 
responsibly with the promise of a fresh start for those who fell 
impossibly behind. I do not believe that that balance was reached.
  I continue to believe that consumers need a meaningful disclosure 
informing them of the effects of making minimum payments.
  Today, as Americans face increasing struggles with debt and expenses, 
the bill is needed more than ever. I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 131

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Credit Card Minimum Payment 
     Notification Act of 2009''.

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

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

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

       ``(B) Definition of open-end credit card account.--In this 
     paragraph, the term `open-end credit card account' means an 
     account in which consumer credit is granted by a creditor 
     under a plan in which the creditor reasonably contemplates 
     repeated transactions, the creditor may impose a finance 
     charge from time to time on an unpaid balance, and the amount 
     of credit that may be extended to the consumer during the 
     term of the plan is generally made available to the extent 
     that any outstanding balance is repaid and up to any limit 
     set by the creditor.
       ``(C) Exemptions.--
       ``(i) Minimum payment of not less than ten percent.--This 
     paragraph shall not apply in any billing cycle in which the 
     account agreement requires a minimum payment of not less than 
     10 percent of the outstanding balance.
       ``(ii) No finance charges.--This paragraph shall not apply 
     in any billing cycle in which finance charges are not 
     imposed.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Kerry, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Specter, Mr. Schumer, and Ms. 
        Cantwell):
  S. 132. A bill to increase and enhance law enforcement resources 
committed to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter 
and punish violent gang crime, to protect law-abiding citizens and 
communities from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal 
penalties for violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Hatch, 
Bayh, Kerry, Murray, Kyl, and Specter in introducing comprehensive 
anti-gang legislation--the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2009.
  This bill has changed significantly since Senator Hatch and I began 
introducing gang legislation over 10 years ago. The current version of 
the bill reflects changes that have been made to comprehensively 
address the gang problem, including provisions emphasizing prevention 
and intervention programs, as well as enforcement funding.
  This bill recognizes that the root causes of gang violence need to be 
addressed--identifying successful community programs and then investing 
significant resources in schools and religious and community 
organizations to prevent young people from joining gangs in the first 
place.
  The bill constitutes a balanced approach to fighting the gang 
problem, with authorization for hundreds of millions of dollars to be 
used for proven gang prevention and intervention programs, as well as 
strong enforcement provisions.
  The rise of criminal street gangs and the effect these gangs are 
having on our Nation are two of the fundamental issues facing us today. 
This country is in the midst of an epidemic of gang violence that cuts 
across every age and every race and plagues our cities, suburbs and 
rural areas. This violence often involves teens and children as both 
victims and perpetrators.
  Almost every day, gang violence is in the news across the country, 
with gang-related killings of children and innocent bystanders almost 
too numerous to count. A person only needs to pick up a newspaper or 
watch the evening news to see how gang violence is affecting our 
communities.
  A snapshot of gang violence that occurred over a 4-day period in Los 
Angeles in March 2008 illustrates how insidious gangs have become.

[[Page 145]]

  On March 2, 2008, Jamiel Shaw, a 17-year-old high school football 
star, was shot to death just three doors from his home in Mid-City Los 
Angeles as he rushed home to make curfew. Two gang members pulled up in 
a car, asked if Jamiel was a gang member, and then shot him when he 
didn't answer. Jamiel was not in a gang and was a model student and 
athlete who was being recruited by Stanford and Rutgers to play 
collegiate football. His mother, a sergeant in the U.S. Army who was 
serving her second tour of duty in Iraq, had to return home to Los 
Angeles to bury her son.
  On March 4, 2008, 6-year-old Lavarea Elvy was shot in the head in the 
Harbor Gateway area of South Los Angeles as she sat in the family car. 
A gang member and a gang associate of a Hispanic street gang have been 
charged in this attempted murder.
  On March 6, 2008, 13-year-old Anthony Escobar was killed while 
picking lemons in a neighbor's yard in the Echo Park area of Los 
Angeles. Anthony was not a gang member, and police believe he was 
targeted by gang members who came to his neighborhood for no other 
reason than to kill someone.
  Stories like these are not limited to California. They are becoming 
commonplace across the country. Consider the following incidents of 
gang violence from across the country:
  In February 2008, Julia Steele, an 80-year-old woman from St. Louis, 
Missouri, was killed when she was caught in the crossfire of gunfire 
between rival gang members. Julia's 80-year-old friend was also injured 
when their car slammed into other vehicles after the shooting.
  Beginning in May 2008, police in Billings, Montana had to increase 
neighborhood patrols due to repeated drive-by shootings conducted by 
gang members.
  In July 2008, a 7-year-old boy was wounded while playing kickball 
near his suburban Roxbury, Massachusetts home. He was shot by an adult 
gang member from Boston, who police believe had traveled to the suburbs 
for no other reason than to shoot someone.
  In October 2008, Christopher Walker, a 16-year-old high school junior 
and member of the varsity basketball team, was shot and killed by a 
gang member near Henry Ford High School, his high school in Detroit, 
Michigan. According to media reports, Chris' death has sparked much 
anger in the community over growing gang violence in the area.
  Across the country, in rural areas, suburbs, and cities, gang 
violence is literally holding neighborhoods hostage and Congress needs 
to do something about it. Our national gang problem is immense and 
growing, and it is not going away.
  On January 18, 2007, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that gang 
crime has become ``part of a clear national trend.'' FBI statistics 
show that there are over 30,000 criminal street gangs operating in the 
United States, with more than one million gang members.
  According to the FBI, gangs have an impact on at least 2,500 
communities across the Nation. These criminal street gangs engage in 
drug trafficking, robbery, extortion, gun trafficking, and murder. They 
recruit children and teens, destroy neighborhoods, cripple families, 
and kill innocent people.
  In California, the State Attorney General has estimated that there 
are 171,000 juveniles and adults committed to criminal street gangs and 
their way of life. That's greater than the population of 28 California 
counties.
  From 1992 to 2003, there were more than 7,500 gang-related homicides 
reported in California. In 2007, 469 of the 2,258 homicides in 
California were gang-related.
  Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton put it bluntly: 
``There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are worse than 
the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the Mafia indiscriminately 
killed 300 people. You can't.''
  It's not just a California problem or an issue limited to big cities. 
In Chicago, the FBI estimates that there are over 60,000 gang members. 
A 2008 DOJ Report notes the rapid spread of gangs and violence to 
suburban areas. FBI Director Mueller recently recognized the national 
scope of the gang problem when he said: ``Gangs are no longer limited 
to Los Angeles. Like a cancer, gangs are spreading to communities 
across America.''
  Our cities and States need our help--a long-term commitment to combat 
gang violence and a Federal helping hand to get our youth out of gangs 
and keep them from joining gangs in the first place.
  Senator Hatch and I have now been introducing comprehensive Federal 
gang legislation for over a decade. Our gang bills have been modified 
and refined over the years, most recently in the bill that passed in 
the Senate in the 110th Congress by unanimous consent.
  The bill that we introduce today is a balanced and measured approach 
to dealing with the gang problem. It has no death penalty provisions, 
no mandatory minimums, and we have eliminated juvenile justice changes 
that previously proved to be an impediment to the larger bill's 
passage.
  The bill that we offer today provides a Federal helping hand to fight 
the gang problem. It provides a comprehensive solution to gang 
violence, combining enforcement, prevention, and intervention efforts 
in a collaborative approach that has proven effective in models like 
Operation Ceasefire.
  The bill recognizes that the Federal Government can do more to fight 
gangs and that more tools must be made available to Federal law 
enforcement agents and prosecutors to stop the epidemic of gang 
violence. To this end, the bill establishes new, common sense Federal 
gang crimes and tougher Federal penalties.
  Existing Federal street gang laws are frankly weak, and are almost 
never used. Currently, a person committing a gang crime might have 
extra time tacked on to the end of their Federal sentence. That is 
because Federal law currently focuses on gang violence only as a 
sentencing enhancement, rather than as a crime unto itself.
  The bill that I offer today would make it a separate Federal crime 
for any criminal street gang member to commit, conspire or attempt to 
commit violent crimes--including murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion--
in furtherance of the gang.
  The penalties for gang members committing such crimes would increase 
considerably.
  For gang-related murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or 
maiming, the penalties would range up to life imprisonment.
  For any other serious violent felony, the penalty would range up to 
30 years.
  For other crimes of violence--defined as the actual or intended use 
of physical force against the person of another--the penalty could 
bring up to 20 years in prison.
  The bill also creates a new crime for recruiting juveniles and adults 
into a criminal street gang, with a penalty of up to 10 years, or if 
the recruiting involved a juvenile or recruiting from prison, up to 20 
years.
  It also creates new Federal crimes for committing violent crimes in 
connection with drug trafficking, and increases existing penalties for 
violent crimes in aid of racketeering.
  Finally, the bill also makes a host of other violent crime reforms, 
including closing a loophole that allows carjackers to avoid 
convictions, increasing the penalties for those who use guns in violent 
crimes or transfer guns knowing they will be used in crimes, and 
limiting bail for violent felons who possess firearms.
  But the bill also recognizes that we cannot simply arrest our way out 
of the gang problem. It also focuses on prevention and intervention 
strategies to prevent our youth from joining street gangs and to give 
existing gang members a way out of that lifestyle.
  Specifically, the bill would authorize over $1 billion in new funds 
over the next 5 years to address the gang problem, including: $411.5 
million to fund gang prevention and intervention programs, like 
Operation Ceasefire, a proven gang prevention and intervention program 
successfully used in communities across the country; $187.5 million to 
establish High Intensity Interstate Gang Activity Areas--Federal,

[[Page 146]]

State, and local law enforcement task forces to combat gangs and 
implement prevention programs; $100 million to fund the DOJ's Project 
Safe Neighborhood Program, the Federal Government's primary anti-gang 
initiative; $50 million for the Project Safe Streets Program, the FBI's 
primary gang investigation tool; $100 million for more prosecutors, 
technology, and equipment for gang investigations; $270 million for 
State witness protection programs in gang cases.
  This balanced approach--of prevention and intervention plus common 
sense enforcement--will send a clear message to gang members: a new day 
has arrived and the Federal Government will no longer sit on the 
sidelines while gang violence engulfs the country.
  This bill will provide gang members with new opportunities, with 
schools and social services agencies empowered to make alternatives to 
gangs a realistic option. But if gang members continue to engage in 
violence, they will face new and serious Federal consequences.
  For more than 10 years now, Senator Hatch and I have been trying to 
pass Federal anti-gang legislation. There have been times when we have 
gotten close, including last session when the Senate passed this same 
bill. Unfortunately, while Congress as a whole has failed to act, 
violent street gangs have only expanded nationwide and become more 
empowered and entrenched in other States and communities.
  I believe this bill can again pass in the Senate and be enacted into 
law. The time has arrived for us to finally address this problem, and I 
believe this bill is well-suited to help solve it.
  I urge my colleagues to favorably consider this legislation in the 
111th Congress.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 132

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gang Abatement and 
     Prevention Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       The table of contents of this Act is as follows:

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

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

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

        TITLE II--VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS TO REDUCE GANG VIOLENCE

Sec. 201. Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity.
Sec. 202. Murder and other violent crimes committed during and in 
              relation to a drug trafficking crime.
Sec. 203. Expansion of rebuttable presumption against release of 
              persons charged with firearms offenses.
Sec. 204. Statute of limitations for violent crime.
Sec. 205. Study of hearsay exception for forfeiture by wrongdoing.
Sec. 206. Possession of firearms by dangerous felons.
Sec. 207. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 208. Amendments relating to violent crime.
Sec. 209. Publicity campaign about new criminal penalties.
Sec. 210. Statute of limitations for terrorism offenses.
Sec. 211. Crimes committed in Indian country or exclusive Federal 
              jurisdiction as racketeering predicates.
Sec. 212. Predicate crimes for authorization of interception of wire, 
              oral, and electronic communications.
Sec. 213. Clarification of Hobbs Act.
Sec. 214. Interstate tampering with or retaliation against a witness, 
              victim, or informant in a State criminal proceeding.
Sec. 215. Amendment of sentencing guidelines.

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

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

         TITLE IV--CRIME PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

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

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

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

[[Page 147]]

     violence, consultation and coordination between Federal, 
     State, and local law enforcement and collaboration with other 
     community agencies is critical to the successful prosecutions 
     of criminal street gangs and reduction of gang problems.

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

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

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

                  ``CHAPTER 26--CRIMINAL STREET GANGS

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

     ``SEC. 521. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this chapter:
       ``(1) Criminal street gang.--The term `criminal street 
     gang' means a formal or informal group, organization, or 
     association of 5 or more individuals--
       ``(A) each of whom has committed at least 1 gang crime; and
       ``(B) who collectively commit 3 or more gang crimes (not 
     less than 1 of which is a serious violent felony), in 
     separate criminal episodes (not less than 1 of which occurs 
     after the date of enactment of the Gang Abatement and 
     Prevention Act of 2009, and the last of which occurs not 
     later than 5 years after the commission of a prior gang crime 
     (excluding any time of imprisonment for that individual)).
       ``(2) Gang crime.--The term `gang crime' means an offense 
     under Federal law punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 
     year, or a felony offense under State law that is punishable 
     by a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more in any of the 
     following categories:
       ``(A) A crime that has as an element the use, attempted 
     use, or threatened use of physical force against the person 
     of another, or is burglary, arson, kidnapping, or extortion.
       ``(B) A crime involving obstruction of justice, or 
     tampering with or retaliating against a witness, victim, or 
     informant.
       ``(C) A crime involving the manufacturing, importing, 
     distributing, possessing with intent to distribute, or 
     otherwise trafficking in a controlled substance or listed 
     chemical (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the 
     Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)).
       ``(D) Any conduct punishable under--
       ``(i) section 844 (relating to explosive materials);
       ``(ii) subsection (a)(1), (d), (g)(1) (where the underlying 
     conviction is a violent felony or a serious drug offense (as 
     those terms are defined in section 924(e)), (g)(2), (g)(3), 
     (g)(4), (g)(5), (g)(8), (g)(9), (g)(10), (g)(11), (i), (j), 
     (k), (n), (o), (p), (q), (u), or (x) of section 922 (relating 
     to unlawful acts);
       ``(iii) subsection (b), (c), (g), (h), (k), (l), (m), or 
     (n) of section 924 (relating to penalties);
       ``(iv) section 930 (relating to possession of firearms and 
     dangerous weapons in Federal facilities);
       ``(v) section 931 (relating to purchase, ownership, or 
     possession of body armor by violent felons);
       ``(vi) sections 1028 and 1029 (relating to fraud, identity 
     theft, and related activity in connection with identification 
     documents or access devices);
       ``(vii) section 1084 (relating to transmission of wagering 
     information);
       ``(viii) section 1952 (relating to interstate and foreign 
     travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises);
       ``(ix) section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary 
     instruments);
       ``(x) section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary 
     transactions in property derived from specified unlawful 
     activity); or
       ``(xi) sections 2312 through 2315 (relating to interstate 
     transportation of stolen motor vehicles or stolen property).
       ``(E) Any conduct punishable under section 274 (relating to 
     bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 
     (relating to aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter the 
     United States), or section 278 (relating to importation of 
     aliens for immoral purposes) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324, 1327, and 1328).
       ``(F) Any crime involving aggravated sexual abuse, sexual 
     assault, pimping or pandering involving prostitution, sexual 
     exploitation of children (including sections 2251, 2251A, 
     2252 and 2260), peonage, slavery, or trafficking in persons 
     (including sections 1581 through 1592) and sections 2421 
     through 2427 (relating to transport for illegal sexual 
     activity).
       ``(3) Minor.--The term `minor' means an individual who is 
     less than 18 years of age.
       ``(4) Serious violent felony.--The term `serious violent 
     felony' has the meaning given that term in section 3559.
       ``(5) State.--The term `State' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and 
     any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United 
     States.

     ``SEC. 522. CRIMINAL STREET GANG PROSECUTIONS.

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

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

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

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

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

     ``SEC. 525. FORFEITURE.

       ``(a) Criminal Forfeiture.--A person who is convicted of a 
     violation of this chapter shall forfeit to the United 
     States--
       ``(1) any property used, or intended to be used, in any 
     manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission 
     of, the violation; and
       ``(2) any property constituting, or derived from, any 
     proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the 
     violation.
       ``(b) Procedures Applicable.--Pursuant to section 2461(c) 
     of title 28, the provisions of section 413 of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsections (a) and 
     (d) of that section, shall apply to the criminal forfeiture 
     of property under this section.''.
       (b) Amendment Relating to Priority of Forfeiture Over 
     Orders for Restitution.--Section 3663(c)(4) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``chapter 46 or'' 
     and inserting ``chapter 26, chapter 46, or''.

[[Page 148]]

       (c) Money Laundering.--Section 1956(c)(7)(D) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting ``, section 522 
     (relating to criminal street gang prosecutions), 523 
     (relating to recruitment of persons to participate in a 
     criminal street gang), and 524 (relating to violent crimes in 
     furtherance of criminal street gangs)'' before ``, section 
     541''.
       (d) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Prohibiting 
     Prisoner Communications.--Section 3582(d) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``chapter 26 (criminal street gangs),'' 
     before ``chapter 95''; and
       (2) by inserting ``a criminal street gang or'' before ``an 
     illegal enterprise''.

        TITLE II--VIOLENT CRIME REFORMS TO REDUCE GANG VIOLENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Section 3142(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     in the matter following paragraph (3), by inserting after 
     ``that the person committed'' the following: ``an offense 
     under subsection (g)(1) (where the underlying conviction is a 
     drug trafficking crime or crime of violence (as those terms 
     are defined in section 924(c))), (g)(2), (g)(3), (g)(4), 
     (g)(5), (g)(8), (g)(9), (g)(10), or (g)(11) of section 
     922,''.

     SEC. 204. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR VIOLENT CRIME.

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

     ``Sec. 3299A. Violent crime offenses

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 206. POSSESSION OF FIREARMS BY DANGEROUS FELONS.

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

     SEC. 207. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

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

     SEC. 208. AMENDMENTS RELATING TO VIOLENT CRIME.

       (a) Carjacking.--Section 2119 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking ``, 
     with the intent'' and all that follows through ``to do so, 
     shall'' and inserting ``knowingly takes a motor vehicle that 
     has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or 
     foreign commerce from the person of another by force and 
     violence or by intimidation, causing a reasonable 
     apprehension of fear of death or serious bodily injury in an 
     individual, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall'';
       (2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``15 years'' and 
     inserting ``20 years'';
       (3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or imprisoned not more 
     than 25 years, or both'' and inserting ``and imprisoned for 
     any term of years or for life''; and
       (4) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``the person takes or 
     attempts to take the motor vehicle in violation of this 
     section with intent to cause death or cause serious bodily 
     injury, and'' before ``death results''.
       (b) Clarification and Strengthening of Prohibition on 
     Illegal Gun Transfers to Commit Drug Trafficking Crime or 
     Crime of Violence.--Section 924(h) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(h) Whoever knowingly transfers a firearm that has moved 
     in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce, 
     knowing that the firearm will be used to commit,

[[Page 149]]

     or possessed in furtherance of, a crime of violence (as 
     defined in subsection (c)(3)) or drug trafficking crime (as 
     defined in subsection (c)(2)) shall be fined under this title 
     and imprisoned not more than 20 years.''.
       (c) Amendment of Special Sentencing Provision Relating to 
     Limitations on Criminal Association.--Section 3582(d) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``chapter 26 of this title (criminal 
     street gang prosecutions) or in'' after ``felony set forth 
     in''; and
       (2) by inserting ``a criminal street gang or'' before ``an 
     illegal enterprise''.
       (d) Conspiracy Penalty.--Section 371 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``five years, or both.'' 
     and inserting ``10 years (unless the maximum penalty for the 
     crime that served as the object of the conspiracy has a 
     maximum penalty of imprisonment of less than 10 years, in 
     which case the maximum penalty under this section shall be 
     the penalty for such crime), or both. This paragraph does not 
     supersede any other penalty specifically set forth for a 
     conspiracy offense.''.

     SEC. 209. PUBLICITY CAMPAIGN ABOUT NEW CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

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

     SEC. 210. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TERRORISM OFFENSES.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 213. CLARIFICATION OF HOBBS ACT.

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

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

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

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

       ``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any person--
       ``(1) to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or to 
     use the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign 
     commerce, or to employ, use, command, counsel, persuade, 
     induce, entice, or coerce any individual to do the same, with 
     the intent to--
       ``(A) use or threaten to use any physical force against any 
     witness, informant, victim, or other participant in a State 
     criminal proceeding in an effort to influence or prevent 
     participation in such proceeding, or to retaliate against 
     such individual for participating in such proceeding; or
       ``(B) threaten, influence, or prevent from testifying any 
     actual or prospective witness in a State criminal proceeding; 
     or
       ``(2) to attempt or conspire to commit an offense under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1).
       ``(b) Penalties.--
       ``(1) Use of force.--Any person who violates subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) by use of force--
       ``(A) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more 
     than 20 years, or both; and
       ``(B) if death, kidnapping, or serious bodily injury 
     results, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any 
     term of years or for life, or both.
       ``(2) Other violations.--Any person who violates subsection 
     (a)(1)(A) by threatened use of force or violates paragraph 
     (1)(B) or (2) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this 
     title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
       ``(c) Venue.--A prosecution under this section may be 
     brought in the district in which the official proceeding 
     (whether or not pending, about to be instituted or was 
     completed) was intended to be affected or was completed, or 
     in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense 
     occurred.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1512 is amended, in the 
     section heading, by adding at the end the following: ``in a 
     Federal proceeding''.
       (c) Chapter Analysis.--The table of sections for chapter 73 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to section 1512 and 
     inserting the following:

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

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

     SEC. 215. AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

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

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

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

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Governor.--The term ``Governor'' means a Governor of a 
     State, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the tribal 
     leader of

[[Page 150]]

     an Indian tribe, or the chief executive of a Commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.
       (2) High intensity gang activity area.--The term ``high 
     intensity gang activity area'' or ``HIGAA'' means an area 
     within 1 or more States or Indian country that is designated 
     as a high intensity gang activity area under subsection 
     (b)(1).
       (3) Indian country.--The term ``Indian country'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 1151 of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the 
     meaning given the term in section 4(e) of the Indian Self-
     Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 
     450b(e)).
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, 
     territory, or possession of the United States.
       (6) Tribal leader.--The term ``tribal leader'' means the 
     chief executive officer representing the governing body of an 
     Indian tribe.
       (b) High Intensity Gang Activity Areas.--
       (1) Designation.--The Attorney General, after consultation 
     with the Governors of appropriate States, may designate as 
     high intensity gang activity areas, specific areas that are 
     located within 1 or more States, which may consist of 1 or 
     more municipalities, counties, or other jurisdictions as 
     appropriate.
       (2) Assistance.--In order to provide Federal assistance to 
     high intensity gang activity areas, the Attorney General 
     shall--
       (A) establish local collaborative working groups, which 
     shall include--
       (i) criminal street gang enforcement teams, consisting of 
     Federal, State, tribal, and local law enforcement 
     authorities, for the coordinated investigation, disruption, 
     apprehension, and prosecution of criminal street gangs and 
     offenders in each high intensity gang activity area;
       (ii) educational, community, and faith leaders in the area;
       (iii) service providers in the community, including those 
     experienced at reaching youth and adults who have been 
     involved in violence and violent gangs or groups, to provide 
     gang-involved or seriously at-risk youth with positive 
     alternatives to gangs and other violent groups and to address 
     the needs of those who leave gangs and other violent groups, 
     and those reentering society from prison; and
       (iv) evaluation teams to research and collect information, 
     assess data, recommend adjustments, and generally assure the 
     accountability and effectiveness of program implementation;
       (B) direct the reassignment or detailing from any Federal 
     department or agency (subject to the approval of the head of 
     that department or agency, in the case of a department or 
     agency other than the Department of Justice) of personnel to 
     each criminal street gang enforcement team;
       (C) direct the reassignment or detailing of representatives 
     from--
       (i) the Department of Justice;
       (ii) the Department of Education;
       (iii) the Department of Labor;
       (iv) the Department of Health and Human Services;
       (v) the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and
       (vi) any other Federal department or agency (subject to the 
     approval of the head of that department or agency, in the 
     case of a department or agency other than the Department of 
     Justice) to each high intensity gang activity area to 
     identify and coordinate efforts to access Federal programs 
     and resources available to provide gang prevention, 
     intervention, and reentry assistance;
       (D) prioritize and administer the Federal program and 
     resource requests made by the local collaborative working 
     group established under subparagraph (A) for each high 
     intensity gang activity area;
       (E) provide all necessary funding for the operation of each 
     local collaborative working group in each high intensity gang 
     activity area; and
       (F) provide all necessary funding for national and regional 
     meetings of local collaborative working groups, criminal 
     street gang enforcement teams, and educational, community, 
     social service, faith-based, and all other related 
     organizations, as needed, to ensure effective operation of 
     such teams through the sharing of intelligence and best 
     practices and for any other related purpose.
       (3) Composition of criminal street gang enforcement team.--
     Each team established under paragraph (2)(A)(i) shall consist 
     of agents and officers, where feasible, from--
       (A) the Federal Bureau of Investigation;
       (B) the Drug Enforcement Administration;
       (C) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives;
       (D) the United States Marshals Service;
       (E) the Department of Homeland Security;
       (F) the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
       (G) State, local, and, where appropriate, tribal law 
     enforcement;
       (H) Federal, State, and local prosecutors; and
       (I) the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Law Enforcement 
     Services, where appropriate.
       (4) Criteria for designation.--In considering an area for 
     designation as a high intensity gang activity area under this 
     section, the Attorney General shall consider--
       (A) the current and predicted levels of gang crime activity 
     in the area;
       (B) the extent to which qualitative and quantitative data 
     indicate that violent crime in the area is related to 
     criminal street gang activity, such as murder, robbery, 
     assaults, carjacking, arson, kidnapping, extortion, drug 
     trafficking, and other criminal activity;
       (C) the extent to which State, local, and, where 
     appropriate, tribal law enforcement agencies, schools, 
     community groups, social service agencies, job agencies, 
     faith-based organizations, and other organizations have 
     committed resources to--
       (i) respond to the gang crime problem; and
       (ii) participate in a gang enforcement team;
       (D) the extent to which a significant increase in the 
     allocation of Federal resources would enhance local response 
     to the gang crime activities in the area; and
       (E) any other criteria that the Attorney General considers 
     to be appropriate.
       (5) Relation to hidtas.--If the Attorney General 
     establishes a high intensity gang activity area that 
     substantially overlaps geographically with any existing high 
     intensity drug trafficking area (in this section referred to 
     as a ``HIDTA''), the Attorney General shall direct the local 
     collaborative working group for that high intensity gang 
     activity area to enter into an agreement with the Executive 
     Board for that HIDTA, providing that--
       (A) the Executive Board of that HIDTA shall establish a 
     separate high intensity gang activity area law enforcement 
     steering committee, and select (with a preference for 
     Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies that are 
     within the geographic area of that high intensity gang 
     activity area) the members of that committee, subject to the 
     concurrence of the Attorney General;
       (B) the high intensity gang activity area law enforcement 
     steering committee established under subparagraph (A) shall 
     administer the funds provided under subsection (g)(1) for the 
     criminal street gang enforcement team, after consulting with, 
     and consistent with the goals and strategies established by, 
     that local collaborative working group;
       (C) the high intensity gang activity area law enforcement 
     steering committee established under subparagraph (A) shall 
     select, from Federal, State, and local law enforcement 
     agencies within the geographic area of that high intensity 
     gang activity area, the members of the Criminal Street Gang 
     Enforcement Team, in accordance with paragraph (3); and
       (D) the Criminal Street Gang Enforcement Team of that high 
     intensity gang activity area, and its law enforcement 
     steering committee, may, with approval of the Executive Board 
     of the HIDTA with which it substantially overlaps, utilize 
     the intelligence-sharing, administrative, and other resources 
     of that HIDTA.
       (c) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than December 1 of each year, 
     the Attorney General shall submit a report to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress and the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget and the Domestic Policy Council that 
     describes, for each designated high intensity gang activity 
     area--
       (A) the specific long-term and short-term goals and 
     objectives;
       (B) the measurements used to evaluate the performance of 
     the high intensity gang activity area in achieving the long-
     term and short-term goals;
       (C) the age, composition, and membership of gangs;
       (D) the number and nature of crimes committed by gangs and 
     gang members;
       (E) the definition of the term ``gang'' used to compile 
     that report; and
       (F) the programmatic outcomes and funding need of the high 
     intensity gang area, including--
       (i) an evidence-based analysis of the best practices and 
     outcomes from the work of the relevant local collaborative 
     working group; and
       (ii) an analysis of whether Federal resources distributed 
     meet the needs of the high intensity gang activity area and, 
     if any programmatic funding shortfalls exist, recommendations 
     for programs or funding to meet such shortfalls.
       (2) Appropriate committees.--In this subsection, the term 
     ``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
       (A) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on 
     Appropriations, and the Committee on Health, Education, 
     Labor, and Pensions of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on 
     Appropriations, the Committee on Education and Labor, and the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (d) Additional Assistant United States Attorneys.--The 
     Attorney General is authorized to hire 94 additional 
     Assistant United States attorneys, and nonattorney 
     coordinators and paralegals as necessary, to carry out the 
     provisions of this section.
       (e) Additional Defense Counsel.--In each of the fiscal 
     years 2009 through 2013, the Director of the Administrative 
     Office of the

[[Page 151]]

     United States Courts is authorized to hire 71 additional 
     attorneys, nonattorney coordinators, and investigators, as 
     necessary, in Federal Defender Programs and Federal Community 
     Defender Organizations, and to make additional payments as 
     necessary to retain appointed counsel under section 3006A of 
     title 18, United States Code, to adequately respond to any 
     increased or expanded caseloads that may occur as a result of 
     this Act or the amendments made by this Act. Funding under 
     this subsection shall not exceed the funding levels under 
     subsection (d).
       (f) National Gang Research, Evaluation, and Policy 
     Institute.--
       (1) In general.--The Office of Justice Programs of the 
     Department of Justice, after consulting with relevant law 
     enforcement officials, practitioners and researchers, shall 
     establish a National Gang Research, Evaluation, and Policy 
     Institute (in this subsection referred to as the 
     ``Institute'').
       (2) Activities.--The Institute shall--
       (A) promote and facilitate the implementation of data-
     driven, effective gang violence suppression, prevention, 
     intervention, and reentry models, such as the Operation 
     Ceasefire model, the Strategic Public Health Approach, the 
     Gang Reduction Program, or any other promising municipally 
     driven, comprehensive community-wide strategy that is 
     demonstrated to be effective in reducing gang violence;
       (B) assist jurisdictions by conducting timely research on 
     effective models and designing and promoting implementation 
     of effective local strategies, including programs that have 
     objectives and data on how they reduce gang violence 
     (including shootings and killings), using prevention, 
     outreach, and community approaches, and that demonstrate the 
     efficacy of these approaches; and
       (C) provide and contract for technical assistance as needed 
     in support of its mission.
       (3) National conference.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of its formation, the Institute shall design and conduct 
     a national conference to reduce and prevent gang violence, 
     and to teach and promote gang violence prevention, 
     intervention, and reentry strategies. The conference shall be 
     attended by appropriate representatives from criminal street 
     gang enforcement teams, and local collaborative working 
     groups, including representatives of educational, community, 
     religious, and social service organizations, and gang program 
     and policy research evaluators.
       (4) National demonstration sites.--Not later than 120 days 
     after the date of its formation, the Institute shall select 
     appropriate HIGAA areas to serve as primary national 
     demonstration sites, based on the nature, concentration, and 
     distribution of various gang types, the jurisdiction's 
     established capacity to integrate prevention, intervention, 
     re-entry and enforcement efforts, and the range of particular 
     gang-related issues. After establishing primary national 
     demonstration sites, the Institute shall establish such other 
     secondary sites, to be linked to and receive evaluation, 
     research, and technical assistance through the primary sites, 
     as it may determine appropriate.
       (5) Dissemination of information.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of its formation, the Institute shall develop 
     and begin dissemination of information about methods to 
     effectively reduce and prevent gang violence, including 
     guides, research and assessment models, case studies, 
     evaluations, and best practices. The Institute shall also 
     create a website, designed to support the implementation of 
     successful gang violence prevention models, and disseminate 
     appropriate information to assist jurisdictions in reducing 
     gang violence.
       (6) Gang intervention academies.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of its formation, the Institute shall, either 
     directly or through contracts with qualified nonprofit 
     organizations, establish not less than 1 training academy, 
     located in a high intensity gang activity area, to promote 
     effective gang intervention and community policing. The 
     purposes of an academy established under this paragraph shall 
     be to increase professionalism of gang intervention workers, 
     improve officer training for working with gang intervention 
     workers, create best practices for independent cooperation 
     between officers and intervention workers, and develop 
     training for community policing.
       (7) Support.--The Institute shall obtain initial and 
     continuing support from experienced researchers and 
     practitioners, as it determines necessary, to test and assist 
     in implementing its strategies nationally, regionally, and 
     locally.
       (8) Research agenda.--The Institute shall establish and 
     implement a core research agenda designed to address areas of 
     particular challenge, including--
       (A) how best to apply and continue to test the models 
     described in paragraph (2) in particularly large 
     jurisdictions;
       (B) how to foster and maximize the continuing impact of 
     community moral voices in this context;
       (C) how to ensure the long-term sustainability of reduced 
     violent crime levels once initial levels of enthusiasm may 
     subside; and
       (D) how to apply existing intervention frameworks to 
     emerging local, regional, national, or international gang 
     problems, such as the emergence of the gang known as MS-13.
       (9) Evaluation.--The National Institute of Justice shall 
     evaluate, on a continuing basis, comprehensive gang violence 
     prevention, intervention, suppression, and reentry strategies 
     supported by the Institute, and shall report the results of 
     these evaluations by no later than October 1 each year to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on 
     the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
       (10) Funds.--The Attorney General shall use not less than 3 
     percent, and not more than 5 percent, of the amounts made 
     available under this section to establish and operate the 
     Institute.
       (g) Use of Funds.--Of amounts made available to a local 
     collaborative working group under this section for each 
     fiscal year that are remaining after the costs of hiring a 
     full time coordinator for the local collaborative effort--
       (1) 50 percent shall be used for the operation of criminal 
     street gang enforcement teams; and
       (2) 50 percent shall be used--
       (A) to provide at-risk youth with positive alternatives to 
     gangs and other violent groups and to address the needs of 
     those who leave gangs and other violent groups through--
       (i) service providers in the community, including schools 
     and school districts; and
       (ii) faith leaders and other individuals experienced at 
     reaching youth who have been involved in violence and violent 
     gangs or groups;
       (B) for the establishment and operation of the National 
     Gang Research, Evaluation, and Policy Institute; and
       (C) to support and provide technical assistance to research 
     in criminal justice, social services, and community gang 
     violence prevention collaborations.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $75,000,000 for 
     each of fiscal years 2009 through 2013. Any funds made 
     available under this subsection shall remain available until 
     expended.

     SEC. 302. GANG PREVENTION GRANTS.

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

[[Page 152]]

       (1) a summary of the activities carried out with grant 
     funds during that year;
       (2) an assessment of the effectiveness of the crime 
     prevention, research, and intervention activities of the 
     recipient, based on data collected by the grant recipient;
       (3) a strategic plan for the year following the year 
     described in paragraph (1);
       (4) evidence of consultation and cooperation with local, 
     State, or Federal law enforcement or, if the grant recipient 
     is a government entity, evidence of consultation with an 
     organization engaged in any activity described in subsection 
     (b); and
       (5) such other information as the Attorney General may 
     require.
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``units of local 
     government'' includes sheriffs departments, police 
     departments, and local prosecutor offices.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated for grants under this section $35,000,000 
     for each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--Section 31702 of the Violent Crime Control 
     and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 13862) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) to hire additional prosecutors to--
       ``(A) allow more cases to be prosecuted; and
       ``(B) reduce backlogs; and
       ``(6) to fund technology, equipment, and training for 
     prosecutors and law enforcement in order to increase accurate 
     identification of gang members and violent offenders, and to 
     maintain databases with such information to facilitate 
     coordination among law enforcement and prosecutors.''.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 31707 of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 13867) is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 31707. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

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

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

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

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General may make grants to 
     public or nonprofit private entities (including faith-based 
     organizations) for the purpose of assisting the entities in 
     carrying out projects involving innovative approaches to 
     combat gang activity.
       (b) Certain Approaches.--Approaches under subsection (a) 
     may include the following:
       (1) Encouraging teen-driven approaches to gang activity 
     prevention.
       (2) Educating parents to recognize signs of problems and 
     potential gang involvement in their children.
       (3) Teaching parents the importance of a nurturing family 
     and home environment to keep children out of gangs.
       (4) Facilitating communication between parents and 
     children, especially programs that have been evaluated and 
     proven effective.
       (c) Matching Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General may make a grant 
     under this section only if the entity receiving the grant 
     agrees to make available (directly or through donations from 
     public or private entities) non-Federal contributions toward 
     the cost of activities to be performed with that grant in an 
     amount that is not less than 25 percent of such costs.
       (2) Determination of amount contributed.--Non-Federal 
     contributions required under paragraph (1) may be in cash or 
     in kind, fairly evaluated, including facilities, equipment, 
     or services. Amounts provided by the Federal Government, or 
     services assisted or subsidized to any significant extent by 
     the Federal Government, may not be included in determining 
     the amount of such non-Federal contributions.
       (d) Evaluation of Projects.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General shall establish 
     criteria for the evaluation of projects involving innovative 
     approaches under subsection (a).
       (2) Grantees.--A grant may be made under subsection (a) 
     only if the entity involved--
       (A) agrees to conduct evaluations of the approach in 
     accordance with the criteria established under paragraph (1);
       (B) agrees to submit to the Attorney General reports 
     describing the results of the evaluations, as the Attorney 
     General determines to be appropriate; and
       (C) submits to the Attorney General, in the application 
     under subsection (e), a plan for conducting the evaluations.

[[Page 153]]

       (e) Application for Grant.--A public or nonprofit private 
     entity desiring a grant under this section shall submit an 
     application in such form, in such manner, and containing such 
     agreements, assurances, and information (including the 
     agreements under subsections (c) and (d) and the plan under 
     subsection (d)(2)(C)) as the Attorney General determines 
     appropriate.
       (f) Report to Congress.--Not later than February 1 of each 
     year, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report 
     describing the extent to which the approaches under 
     subsection (a) have been successful in reducing the rate of 
     gang activity in the communities in which the approaches have 
     been carried out. Each report under this subsection shall 
     describe the various approaches used under subsection (a) and 
     the effectiveness of each of the approaches.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section for 
     each of the fiscal years 2009 through 2013.

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

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 309. WITNESS PROTECTION SERVICES.

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

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

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

     SEC. 311. FAMILY ABDUCTION PREVENTION GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) State Grants.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     make grants to States for projects involving--
       (1) the extradition of individuals suspected of committing 
     a family abduction;
       (2) the investigation by State and local law enforcement 
     agencies of family abduction cases;
       (3) the training of State and local law enforcement 
     agencies in responding to family abductions and recovering 
     abducted children, including the development of written 
     guidelines and technical assistance;
       (4) outreach and media campaigns to educate parents on the 
     dangers of family abductions; and
       (5) the flagging of school records.
       (b) Matching Requirement.--Not less than 50 percent of the 
     cost of a project for which a grant is made under this 
     section shall be provided by non-Federal sources.
       (c) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Family abduction.---The term ``family abduction'' means 
     the taking, keeping, or concealing of a child or children by 
     a parent, other family member, or person acting on behalf of 
     the parent or family member, that prevents another individual 
     from exercising lawful custody or visitation rights.
       (2) Flagging.--The term ``flagging'' means the process of 
     notifying law enforcement authorities of the name and address 
     of any person requesting the school records of an abducted 
     child.
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, 
     American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, any territory or 
     possession of the United States, and any Indian tribe.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $500,000 for 
     fiscal year 2009 and such sums as may be necessary for each 
     of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

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

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

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

       Section 709 of the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
     Reauthorization Act of 1998 (21 U.S.C. 1708) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (k) and (l) as subsections 
     (l) and (m), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (j) the following:
       ``(k) Prevention of Heroin Abuse.--
       ``(1) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       ``(A) Heroin, and particularly the form known as `cheese 
     heroin' (a drug made by mixing black tar heroin with 
     diphenhydramine), poses a significant and increasing threat 
     to youth in the United States.
       ``(B) Drug organizations import heroin from outside of the 
     United States, mix the highly addictive drug with 
     diphenhydramine, and distribute it mostly to youth.
       ``(C) Since the initial discovery of cheese heroin on 
     Dallas school campuses in 2005, at

[[Page 154]]

     least 21 minors have died after overdosing on cheese heroin 
     in Dallas County.
       ``(D) The number of arrests involving possession of cheese 
     heroin in the Dallas area during the 2006-2007 school year 
     increased over 60 percent from the previous school year.
       ``(E) The ease of communication via the Internet and cell 
     phones allows a drug trend to spread rapidly across the 
     country, creating a national threat.
       ``(F) Gangs recruit youth as new members by providing them 
     with this inexpensive drug.
       ``(G) Reports show that there is rampant ignorance among 
     youth about the dangerous and potentially fatal effects of 
     cheese heroin.
       ``(2) Prevention of heroin abuse.--In conducting 
     advertising and activities otherwise authorized under this 
     section, the Director shall promote prevention of youth 
     heroin use, including cheese heroin.''.

     SEC. 314. TRAINING AT THE NATIONAL ADVOCACY CENTER.

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

         TITLE IV--CRIME PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

     SEC. 401. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 402. PURPOSES.

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

     SEC. 403. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the National Commission on Public Safety Through 
     Crime Prevention.
       (b) Members.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 
     members, of whom--
       (A) 3 shall be appointed by the President, 1 of whom shall 
     be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice 
     Programs or a representative of such Assistant Attorney 
     General;
       (B) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, unless the Speaker is of the same party as 
     the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and 1 shall be 
     appointed by the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (C) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives (in addition to any appointment made 
     under subparagraph (B));
       (D) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate, unless the majority leader is of the same party as 
     the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the 
     majority leader of the Senate and 1 shall be appointed by the 
     minority leader of the Senate; and
       (E) 1 member appointed by the minority leader of the Senate 
     (in addition to any appointment made under subparagraph (D)).
       (2) Persons eligible.--
       (A) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall be an 
     individual who has knowledge or expertise in matters to be 
     studied by the Commission.
       (B) Required representatives.--At least--
       (i) 2 members of the Commission shall be respected social 
     scientists with experience implementing or interpreting 
     rigorous, outcome-based trials; and
       (ii) 2 members of the Commission shall be law enforcement 
     practitioners.
       (3) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives, and the majority leader and 
     minority leader of the Senate shall consult prior to the 
     appointment of the members of the Commission to achieve, to 
     the maximum extent possible, fair and equitable 
     representation of various points of view with respect to the 
     matters to be studied by the Commission.
       (4) Term.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of 
     the Commission.
       (5) Time for initial appointments.--The appointment of the 
     members shall be made not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (6) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made, and 
     shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which 
     the vacancy occurred.
       (7) Ex officio members.--The Director of the National 
     Institute of Justice, the Director of the Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Director of the 
     Community Capacity Development Office, the Director of the 
     Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Director of the Bureau of 
     Justice Assistance, and the Director of Community Oriented 
     Policing Services (or a representative of each such director) 
     shall each serve in an ex officio capacity on the Commission 
     to provide advice and information to the Commission.
       (c) Operation.--
       (1) Chairperson.--At the initial meeting of the Commission, 
     the members of the Commission shall elect a chairperson from 
     among its voting members, by a vote of \2/3\ of the members 
     of the Commission. The chairperson shall retain this position 
     for the life of the Commission. If the chairperson leaves the 
     Commission, a new chairperson shall be selected, by a vote of 
     \2/3\ of the members of the Commission.
       (2) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson. The initial meeting of the Commission shall take 
     place not later than 30 days after the date on which all the 
     members of the Commission have been appointed.
       (3) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, and the 
     Commission may establish a lesser quorum for conducting 
     hearings scheduled by the Commission.
       (4) Rules.--The Commission may establish by majority vote 
     any other rules for the conduct of Commission business, if 
     such rules are not inconsistent with this title or other 
     applicable law.
       (d) Public Hearings.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall hold public hearings. 
     The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such 
     times and places, take such testimony, and receive such 
     evidence as the Commission considers advisable to carry out 
     its duties under this section.
       (2) Focus of hearings.--The Commission shall hold at least 
     3 separate public hearings, each of which shall focus on 1 of 
     the subcategories.
       (3) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before 
     the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to 
     witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code. 
     The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be 
     paid from funds appropriated to the Commission.
       (e) Comprehensive Study of Evidence-Based Crime Prevention 
     and Intervention Strategies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall carry out a 
     comprehensive study of the effectiveness of crime and 
     delinquency prevention and intervention strategies, organized 
     around the 3 subcategories.

[[Page 155]]

       (2) Matters included.--The study under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) a review of research on the general effectiveness of 
     incorporating crime prevention and intervention strategies 
     into an overall law enforcement plan;
       (B) an evaluation of how to more effectively communicate 
     the wealth of social science research to practitioners;
       (C) a review of evidence regarding the effectiveness of 
     specific crime prevention and intervention strategies, 
     focusing on those strategies supported by rigorous evidence;
       (D) an identification of--
       (i) promising areas for further research and development; 
     and
       (ii) other areas representing gaps in the body of knowledge 
     that would benefit from additional research and development;
       (E) an assessment of the best practices for implementing 
     prevention and intervention strategies;
       (F) an assessment of the best practices for gathering 
     rigorous evidence regarding the implementation of 
     intervention and prevention strategies; and
       (G) an assessment of those top-tier strategies best suited 
     for duplication efforts in a range of settings across the 
     country.
       (3) Initial report on top-tier crime prevention and 
     intervention strategies.--
       (A) Distribution.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall submit a public report on the study 
     carried out under this subsection to--
       (i) the President;
       (ii) Congress;
       (iii) the Attorney General;
       (iv) the Chief Federal Public Defender of each district;
       (v) the chief executive of each State;
       (vi) the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     Courts of each State;
       (vii) the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts; and
       (viii) the attorney general of each State.
       (B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include--
       (i) the findings and conclusions of the Commission;
       (ii) a summary of the top-tier strategies, including--

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

       (iii) recommended protocols for implementing crime and 
     delinquency prevention and intervention strategies generally;
       (iv) recommended protocols for evaluating the effectiveness 
     of crime and delinquency prevention and intervention 
     strategies; and
       (v) a summary of the materials relied upon by the 
     Commission in preparation of the report.
       (C) Consultation with outside authorities.--In developing 
     the recommended protocols for implementation and rigorous 
     evaluation of top-tier crime and delinquency prevention and 
     intervention strategies under this paragraph, the Commission 
     shall consult with the Committee on Law and Justice at the 
     National Academy of Science and with national associations 
     representing the law enforcement and social science 
     professions, including the National Sheriffs' Association, 
     the Police Executive Research Forum, the International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police, the Consortium of Social 
     Science Associations, and the American Society of 
     Criminology.
       (f) Recommendations Regarding Dissemination of the 
     Innovative Crime Prevention and Intervention Strategy 
     Grants.--
       (1) Submission.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the final hearing under subsection (d) relating to a 
     subcategory, the Commission shall provide the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice with recommendations on 
     qualifying considerations relating to that subcategory for 
     selecting grant recipients under section 405.
       (B) Deadline.--Not later than 13 months after the date on 
     which all members of the Commission have been appointed, the 
     Commission shall provide all recommendations required under 
     this subsection.
       (2) Matters included.--The recommendations provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall include recommendations relating to--
       (A) the types of strategies for the applicable subcategory 
     that would best benefit from additional research and 
     development;
       (B) any geographic or demographic targets;
       (C) the types of partnerships with other public or private 
     entities that might be pertinent and prioritized; and
       (D) any classes of crime and delinquency prevention and 
     intervention strategies that should not be given priority 
     because of a pre-existing base of knowledge that would 
     benefit less from additional research and development.
       (g) Final Report on the Results of the Innovative Crime 
     Prevention and Intervention Strategy Grants.--
       (1) In general.--Following the close of the 3-year 
     implementation period for each grant recipient under section 
     405, the Commission shall collect the results of the study of 
     the effectiveness of that grant under section 405(b)(3) and 
     shall submit a public report to the President, the Attorney 
     General, Congress, the chief executive of each State, and the 
     attorney general of each State describing each strategy 
     funded under section 405 and its results. This report shall 
     be submitted not later than 5 years after the date of the 
     selection of the chairperson of the Commission.
       (2) Collection of information and evidence regarding grant 
     recipients.--The Commission's collection of information and 
     evidence regarding each grant recipient under section 405 
     shall be carried out by--
       (A) ongoing communications with the grant administrator at 
     the National Institute of Justice;
       (B) visits by representatives of the Commission (including 
     at least 1 member of the Commission) to the site where the 
     grant recipient is carrying out the strategy with a grant 
     under section 405, at least once in the second and once in 
     the third year of that grant;
       (C) a review of the data generated by the study monitoring 
     the effectiveness of the strategy; and
       (D) other means as necessary.
       (3) Matters included.--The report submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include a review of each strategy carried out with 
     a grant under section 405, detailing--
       (A) the type of crime or delinquency prevention or 
     intervention strategy;
       (B) where the activities under the strategy were carried 
     out, including geographic and demographic targets;
       (C) any partnerships with public or private entities 
     through the course of the grant period;
       (D) the type and design of the effectiveness study 
     conducted under section 405(b)(3) for that strategy;
       (E) the results of the effectiveness study conducted under 
     section 405(b)(3) for that strategy;
       (F) lessons learned regarding implementation of that 
     strategy or of the effectiveness study conducted under 
     section 405(b)(3), including recommendations regarding which 
     types of environments might best be suited for successful 
     replication; and
       (G) recommendations regarding the need for further research 
     and development of the strategy.
       (h) Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of service for the Commission.
       (2) Compensation of members.--Members of the Commission 
     shall serve without compensation.
       (3) Staff.--
       (A) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (B) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     such title.
       (4) Detail of federal employees.--With the affirmative vote 
     of \2/3\ of the members of the Commission, any Federal 
     Government employee, with the approval of the head of the 
     appropriate Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission 
     without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without 
     interruption or loss of civil service status, benefits, or 
     privileges.
       (i) Contracts for Research.--
       (1) National institute of justice.--With a \2/3\ 
     affirmative vote of the members of the Commission, the 
     Commission may select nongovernmental researchers and experts 
     to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under 
     this title. The National Institute of Justice shall contract 
     with the researchers and experts selected by the Commission 
     to provide funding in exchange for their services.
       (2) Other organizations.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to limit the ability of the Commission to enter 
     into contracts with other entities or organizations for 
     research necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission 
     under this section.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
       (k) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the 
     date that is 30 days after the date on which the Commission 
     submits the last report required by this section.
       (l) Exemption.--The Commission shall be exempt from the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act.

[[Page 156]]



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

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

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

       (iii) Approval.--Before a grant is awarded under this 
     section, the evaluator and study design of a grantee shall be 
     approved by the employee of the National Institute of Justice 
     hired or assigned under subsection (c).
       (4) Date of award.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of receiving recommendations relating to a subcategory from 
     the Commission under section 404(f), the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice shall award all grants under 
     this section relating to that subcategory.
       (5) Type of grants.--One-third of the grants made under 
     this section shall be made in each subcategory. In 
     distributing grants, the recommendations of the Commission 
     under section 404(f) shall be considered.
       (6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $18,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
       (c) Dedicated Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of 
     Justice shall hire or assign a full-time employee to oversee 
     the grants under this section.
       (2) Study oversight.--The employee of the National 
     Institute of Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1) 
     shall be responsible for ensuring that grantees adhere to the 
     study design approved before the applicable grant was 
     awarded.
       (3) Liaison.--The employee of the National Institute of 
     Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1) may be used as 
     a liaison between the Commission and the recipients of a 
     grant under this section. That employee shall be responsible 
     for ensuring timely cooperation with Commission requests.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $150,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 
     through 2013 to carry out this subsection.
       (d) Applications.--A public or private entity desiring a 
     grant under this section shall submit an application at such 
     time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as 
     the Director of the National Institute of Justice may 
     reasonably require.
       (e) Cooperation With the Commission.--Grant recipients 
     shall cooperate with the Commission in providing them with 
     full information on the progress of the strategy being 
     carried out with a grant under this section, including--
       (1) hosting visits by the members of the Commission to the 
     site where the activities under the strategy are being 
     carried out;
       (2) providing pertinent information on the logistics of 
     establishing the strategy for which the grant under this 
     section was received, including details on partnerships, 
     selection of participants, and any efforts to publicize the 
     strategy; and
       (3) responding to any specific inquiries that may be made 
     by the Commission.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. 
        Boxer, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 133. A bill to prohibit any recipient of emergency Federal 
economic assistance from using such funds for lobbying expenditures or 
political contributions, to improve transparency, enhance 
accountability, encourage responsible corporate governance, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of myself and Senator 
Snowe to introduce legislation that will increase transparency, 
strengthen oversight, and require firms receiving financial lifelines 
from the Federal Government to practice responsible corporate 
governance.
  Our bill--the Troubled Asset Relief Program Transparency Reporting 
Act--will achieve four essential objectives, prohibit firms receiving 
loans from the Federal Reserve or participating in the Troubled Asset 
Relief Program, TARP, from using this money for lobbying expenditures 
or political contributions; require that firms receiving government 
assistance provide detailed, publicly available quarterly reports to 
Treasury outlining how taxpayer dollars have been used; establish 
corporate governance standards to ensure that firms receiving Federal 
assistance do not waste money on unnecessary expenditures; and create 
penalties of at least $100,000 per violation for firms that fail to 
meet the corporate governance standards established in the bill.
  The need for such legislation has become very apparent in the 3 
months since Congress approved the economic rescue plan.
  The economic rescue legislation passed in October includes several 
oversight boards and accountability provisions to ensure that public 
funds are effectively distributed. But, it does not include any 
reporting requirements for firms that receive Federal dollars.
  This is a significant omission, especially given the amount of 
Federal money that some firms are receiving.
  The Treasury Department has committed to purchasing $250 billion of 
preferred stock in financial institutions. More than 200 financial 
institutions have received roughly $188 billion. Of these funds, $125 
billion was allocated to nine large national banks.
  In addition to injecting capital into banks, American Insurance 
Group, AIG, has received an additional $40 billion and CitiGroup has 
received $20 billion of TARP funds.
  Last month, GM received more than $10 billion in financing through 
the recently implemented Automotive Industry Financing Program.
  This effectively means that the entirety of the first $350 billion of 
rescue funds has been spent.
  When you add up all of the taxpayer dollars put on the line--from $30 
billion provided to Bear Stearns in March, $200 billion available to 
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $150 billion to AIG, $700 billion for TARP, 
plus the direct lending programs at the Federal Reserve--we are talking 
about well over 1 trillion Federal dollars.
  I certainly don't think it is unreasonable for the public to know how 
their money is being spent, and I am not the only Member of Congress or 
elected official who feels this way.
  In response to questions posed by the Congressional Oversight Panel 
for Economic Stabilization, the Treasury Department noted that it was 
committed to rigorous oversight of executive compensation packages. 
This may be the case, but executive compensation is only the beginning.
  While I am pleased that CEOs at some financial institutions that 
accepted Federal assistance did not accept their annual bonuses last 
year, we still do not have an official accounting of how Federal funds 
were used.
  Certainly Americans deserve assurances that struggling firms will not 
use public funds to pay exorbitant salaries or bonuses.
  The same can be said for these funds going towards dividend payments, 
or mergers and acquisitions.
  The Government Accountability Office, GAO, has reported that the 
Treasury Department had no strong accountability or oversight function 
to ensure that banks were using rescue assistance with the best 
interests of the public in mind.
  It noted that Treasury had little ability to ensure that 
participating firms complied with laws already limiting executive 
compensation and conflicts of interest.
  An investigation last month by the Associated Press found that many 
banks that have accepted Federal assistance are not able to say with 
certainty exactly how they have used the

[[Page 157]]

money. Some of these banks would not even discuss the issue.
  We cannot be sure that the rescue funds are being used to stabilize 
the economy if banks are not keeping proper accounting of their use, 
and those that do will not disclose it.
  Shining light on how firms use public dollars not only makes good 
sense, but it will also act as a deterrent to irresponsible behavior.
  On October 16, 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported that AIG, which 
received billions of dollars in Federal rescue funds, was continuing to 
lobby State regulators to delay implementation of strengthened 
licensing standards for mortgage brokers and lenders.
  AIG was lobbying against sensible standards created by the SAFE 
Mortgage Licensing Act. This bill, introduced by Senator Martinez and 
myself, established basic minimum regulations for the mortgage industry 
to ensure consumers were adequately protected.
  Before this bill, in some States virtually anyone--even those with 
criminal records--could go out and get a mortgage broker's license.
  Left unchecked, and with no regulations to stop them, unscrupulous 
mortgage brokers and lenders flooded the markets with subprime loans 
that they knew would never be paid back.
  Of course, this has served as one of the catalysts for our current 
economic predicament.
  And now AIG, propped up by billions in Government money after having 
succumbed to bad investments, was lobbying against the strong 
enforcement of State laws that might have helped prevent this 
catastrophe in the first place.
  Senator Martinez and I wrote a letter to AIG and, to the company's 
credit, CEO Edward Liddy immediately suspended the company's lobbying 
operations.
  I find it completely unacceptable that taxpayer dollars intended to 
stabilize the economy could find their way into the bank accounts of 
lobbying firms. The legislation which I am reintroducing today will 
make sure that does not happen.
  I do not mean to pick on AIG, but they have also been the poster 
child for wasteful spending by rescued firms.
  In September 2008, just days after receiving an $85 billion Federal 
lifeline, the management of AIG treated itself to a $444,000 spa 
weekend at the St. Regis resort in Monarch Beach, California. This 
included $200,000 for rooms, $150,000 for fine dining and $23,000 in 
spa charges.
  AIG executives spent the last 2 days of September 2008 on a golf 
outing at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas at a cost of up to $500,000. They 
were planning to follow this with a few days at the Ritz Carlton in 
Half Moon Bay, but cancelled after it hit the news and drew fire from 
congressional leaders.
  As news of these wasteful expenditures was making headlines, AIG 
received another $37.8 billion in emergency loans from the Federal 
Government.
  Shortly thereafter, the Associated Press reported that--even as AIG 
was asking Congress for these loans--AIG executives were spending 
$86,000 on a pheasant hunting expedition in England. During the trip, 
they stayed at a 17th century manor.
  One AIG executive named Sebastian Preil was quoted as saying that: 
``The recession will go on until about 2011, but the shooting was great 
today and we are relaxing fine.''
  Once these lapses in judgment came to light, AIG chief executive 
Edward Liddy informed Congress that he was putting an end to all 
nonessential expenditures. Yet weeks later, an undercover news crew 
caught AIG executives at the Hilton Squaw Peak Resort in Phoenix, 
hosting a seminar for financial planners complete with cocktails and 
limousines.
  One would think that a brush with collapse and total failure might 
have a sobering effect on some of these firms.
  But this penchant for wasteful junkets in the face of complete 
failure was not unique to AIG.
  Following enactment of TARP, news reports have uncovered multiple 
instances in which rescued firms have been caught making unnecessary 
and outrageous expenditures, leading many taxpayers to question why 
these firms are receiving Federal assistance in the first place.
  In November, Treasury Secretary Paulson announced that the $700 
billion approved by Congress to stabilize financial markets would not 
be used to purchase illiquid assets but rather to make direct capital 
injections into financial institutions.
  Given this new mission, the need for additional transparency and 
disclosure is striking.
  We have learned that we cannot necessarily count on these firms and 
their executives to act sensibly and do what is right.
  The public needs to know that their tax dollars are being put to good 
use.
  A simple ``trust me'' from the bank executives is not enough.
  Americans are struggling, and the pain in my State of California, 
where unemployment is 8.4 percent, and foreclosure filings exceeded 
750,000 last year, is especially acute.
  This bill puts in place commonsense solutions to fix some of the 
deficiencies in the economic stabilization bill.
  This legislation is significant and sorely needed.
  We must act soon to help restore confidence in this effort and shed 
light on how public funds are used. We promised the American people 
transparency and oversight, and this legislation will make good on that 
promise.
  I hope my colleagues will join me to ensure that taxpayer dollars are 
spent efficiently and responsibly.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 138. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 
alternative minimum tax limitations on private activity bond interest, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introduce 
legislation to exempt private activity bond interest from the 
alternative minimum tax, AMT. My colleague from Massachusetts, 
Representative Richard Neal has introduced similar legislation. Under 
current law, interest paid on private activity bonds is subject to the 
alternative minimum tax. This results in the bonds not being very 
marketable in these difficult economic times.
  Making private activity bonds no longer subject to the AMT would help 
with the issuance of bonds. This legislation would assist in needed 
relief to State and local governments across the Nation. It would 
provide more buyers to the market, resulting in interest savings for 
issuers, and ultimately taxpayers.
  Subjecting private activity bond interest to the AMT could cost an 
issuer 25 to 30 more basis points when issuing an AMT bond compared to 
a non-AMT bond. However, the recent freezing of the municipal credit 
market has led the difference to rise as much as 100 basis points. This 
results in increased costs for various infrastructure projects 
including airports, docks and other transportation-related facilities; 
water, sewer and other utility facilities; and solid and hazardous 
waste disposal facilities.
  Last Congress, I worked on a provision to exempt the interest from 
private activity housing bonds from the AMT and this provision was 
included in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The 
legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing builds on this 
provision by exempting interest from all private activity bonds from 
the AMT.
  I believe this legislation will help spur the economy and create 
jobs. This legislation will provide better funding options for 
essential infrastructure projects and create jobs across the country. I 
look forward to working with my colleagues on this important 
legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 139. A bill to require Federal agencies, and persons engaged in 
interstate commerce, in possession of data containing sensitive 
personally identifiable information, to disclose any breach of such 
information; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

[[Page 158]]


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

                                 S. 139

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Data Breach Notification 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. NOTICE TO INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Any agency, or business entity engaged in 
     interstate commerce, that

[[Page 159]]

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

     SEC. 3. EXEMPTIONS.

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

     SEC. 4. METHODS OF NOTICE.

       An agency, or business entity shall be in compliance with 
     section 2 if it provides both:
       (1) Individual notice.--
       (A) Written notification to the last known home mailing 
     address of the individual in the records of the agency or 
     business entity;
       (B) telephone notice to the individual personally; or
       (C) e-mail notice, if the individual has consented to 
     receive such notice and the notice is consistent with the 
     provisions permitting electronic transmission of notices 
     under section 101 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and 
     National Commerce Act (15 U.S.C. 7001).
       (2) Media notice.--Notice to major media outlets serving a 
     State or jurisdiction, if the number of residents of such 
     State whose sensitive personally identifiable information 
     was, or is reasonably believed to have been, acquired by an 
     unauthorized person exceeds 5,000.

     SEC. 5. CONTENT OF NOTIFICATION.

       (a) In General.--Regardless of the method by which notice 
     is provided to individuals under section 4, such notice shall 
     include, to the extent possible--
       (1) a description of the categories of sensitive personally 
     identifiable information that was, or is reasonably believed 
     to have been, acquired by an unauthorized person;
       (2) a toll-free number--
       (A) that the individual may use to contact the agency or 
     business entity, or the agent of the agency or business 
     entity; and

[[Page 160]]

       (B) from which the individual may learn what types of 
     sensitive personally identifiable information the agency or 
     business entity maintained about that individual; and
       (3) the toll-free contact telephone numbers and addresses 
     for the major credit reporting agencies.
       (b) Additional Content.--Notwithstanding section 10, a 
     State may require that a notice under subsection (a) shall 
     also include information regarding victim protection 
     assistance provided for by that State.

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

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

     SEC. 7. NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT.

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

     SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT.

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

     SEC. 9. ENFORCEMENT BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.

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

     SEC. 10. EFFECT ON FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.

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

     SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

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

     SEC. 12. REPORTING ON RISK ASSESSMENT EXEMPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The United States Secret Service shall 
     report to Congress not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment

[[Page 161]]

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

     SEC. 13. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

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

     SEC. 14. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the expiration of the date 
     which is 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 140. A bill to modify the requirements applicable to locatable 
minerals on public domain lands, consistent with the principles of 
self-initiation of mining claims, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that will help address the threats to public health and safety caused 
by abandoned hardrock mines.
  There are as many as 500,000 abandoned mines strewn across the 
western states--47,000 alone are found on California's public lands.
  The scope of this problem is huge.
  In the past two years, eight accidents at abandoned mine sites were 
reported in California. Throughout the United States, at least 37 
deaths occurred between 1999 and 2007 and the potential for more is 
ominous.
  Basic remediation efforts, such as warning signs and fencing, can 
provide protection.
  However, some abandoned mines pose a more serious threat. 
Environmental impact studies have shown that important watersheds are 
being polluted by high levels of harmful minerals, such as mercury, 
lead, arsenic and asbestos. In California alone, seventeen watersheds 
have been affected.
  Yet not enough is being done to clean up these dangerous Gold Rush-
era mines.
  The bill that I am introducing today is not intended to be a 
comprehensive hardrock mining bill, but it is an important piece of the 
reform needed.
  The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act of 2009 will reform the 1872 
Mining Law by establishing fees to support abandoned mine clean up; 
establishing a royalty payment system; and creating an Abandoned Mine 
Clean up Fund.
  Unlike the coal industry, the metal mining industry does not pay to 
clean up its legacy of abandoned mines, making lack of funding the 
primary obstacle to abandoned hardrock mine clean up.
  This legislation would help fund the clean up of abandoned mines by 
placing an Abandoned Mine Reclamation fee on all hardrock minerals, 
using the underground coal industry fee program as a model. 
Specifically, it would create a 0.3 percent reclamation fee on the 
gross value of all hardrock mineral mining, including mining on 
Federal, State, tribal, local and private lands.
  The condition of abandoned coal mines has greatly improved since the 
Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 established a fee to 
finance restoration of land abandoned or inadequately restored by coal 
mining companies.
  This fund has been able to raise billions of dollars for coal mine 
reclamation--and I believe that a similar program could be part of the 
solution to hardrock abandoned mine clean up.
  This legislation establishes a royalty fee on Hardrock Mining Claims.
  Companies that mine for gold and silver on Federal lands are not 
currently required to pay any royalties to the Federal Government--even 
though we are experiencing near record high gold prices.
  These companies should be required to pay their fair share.
  The Abandoned Mine Reclamation Act establishes an 8 percent royalty 
on new mining operations located on Federal lands, and a 4 percent 
royalty for existing operations.
  The legislation I am introducing today also creates an Abandoned Mine 
Fund.
  In these times of budget deficits, it's clear that we will not be 
able to simply appropriate the funds necessary to clean up the hundreds 
of thousands of abandoned hard rock mines.
  So, this legislation will create an abandoned mine clean up fund to 
ensure that we have a lasting source of funding for this critical clean 
up effort.
  Specifically, the fund will direct the royalties, as well as other 
payments collected from mining operations, and dedicate them to the 
clean up of abandoned hardrock mines.
  I recognize the important role that mining has played in California's 
history. The discovery of gold at Sutter Mill near Placerville, 
California in 1848 was a defining moment for my State and the U.S.
  It is fair to say that without mining and the Gold Rush, California 
and the entire country would be a far different place than it is today.
  The history of mining in California, however, is tarnished by the 
legacy of tens of thousands of abandoned mines. In particular, 
abandoned mine sites on Federal lands.
  A recent report from the Department of the Interior's Inspector 
General underscores the scope and the urgency of

[[Page 162]]

 the abandoned mine problem on public lands--in particular, those 
managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service.
  The report concluded that public health and safety have been 
compromised by mismanagement, funding shortfalls and systematic 
neglect.
  The report found the potential for more deaths and injuries is 
ominous. A number of abandoned mine sites on public lands present an 
immediate danger due to open shafts, collapsing mine walls, and rotting 
structures. Some have deadly gases that accumulate in underground 
passages. And others leach hazardous chemicals like arsenic, lead and 
mercury into groundwater.
   The Bureau of Land Management's abandoned mines program has been 
neglected and understaffed. In some cases, staff were told by their 
supervisors to ignore these problems; and those who did come forward to 
identify contaminated sites were criticized or outright threatened.
  The scope of the problem is less severe at the National Parks 
Service. But perennial funding shortfalls impede the clean up of known 
abandoned mines.
  At the heart of the problem is a century-old law signed by President 
Ulysses S. Grant to promote the settlement of publicly-owned lands in 
the western states.
  The 1872 Mining Law created national standards for hardrock mining 
operations on Federal public lands; however, it has not been 
substantially updated for 137 years. Under this outdated framework, the 
hardrock mining industry does not pay royalties for minerals taken from 
Federal land and is not obligated to share in the cost of clean up for 
abandoned mines. Since the enactment of this law, hundreds of thousands 
of mines have been abandoned.
  Congress needs to move swiftly to address this issue before more 
damage and accidents occur.
  Though this legislation is a significant step forward for the funding 
of abandoned mines, I know that there is much more mining reform to be 
done.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to modernize our 
Nation's mining laws and accelerate the clean up of dangerous abandoned 
mines.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 140

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

              TITLE I--MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

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

                 TITLE II--ABANDONED MINE CLEANUP FUND

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

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

Sec. 301. Effective date.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS AND REFERENCES.

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

     SEC. 3. APPLICATION RULES.

       (a) In General.--This Act applies to any mining claim, 
     millsite claim, or tunnel site claim located under the 
     general mining laws, before, on, or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, except as provided in subsection (b).

[[Page 163]]

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

              TITLE I--MINERAL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT

     SEC. 101. ROYALTY.

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

[[Page 164]]

     mining claims where royalty payments are not received by the 
     Secretary on the date that such payments are due, the 
     Secretary shall charge interest on such underpayments at the 
     same interest rate as the rate applicable under section 
     6621(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. In the case 
     of an underpayment, interest shall be computed and charged 
     only on the amount of the deficiency and not on the total 
     amount.
       (2) If there is any underreporting of royalty owed on 
     production from a claim for any production month by any 
     person liable for royalty payments under this section, the 
     Secretary shall assess a penalty of not greater than 25 
     percent of the amount of that underreporting.
       (3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``underreporting'' means the difference between the royalty 
     on the value of the production that should have been reported 
     and the royalty on the value of the production which was 
     reported, if the value that should have been reported is 
     greater than the value that was reported.
       (4) The Secretary may waive or reduce the assessment 
     provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection if the person 
     liable for royalty payments under this section corrects the 
     underreporting before the date such person receives notice 
     from the Secretary that an underreporting may have occurred, 
     or before 90 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     section, whichever is later.
       (5) The Secretary shall waive any portion of an assessment 
     under paragraph (2) of this subsection attributable to that 
     portion of the underreporting for which the person 
     responsible for paying the royalty demonstrates that--
       (A) such person had written authorization from the 
     Secretary to report royalty on the value of the production on 
     basis on which it was reported;
       (B) such person had substantial authority for reporting 
     royalty on the value of the production on the basis on which 
     it was reported;
       (C) such person previously had notified the Secretary, in 
     such manner as the Secretary may by rule prescribe, of 
     relevant reasons or facts affecting the royalty treatment of 
     specific production which led to the underreporting; or
       (D) such person meets any other exception which the 
     Secretary may, by rule, establish.
       (6) All penalties collected under this subsection shall be 
     deposited in the Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund established by 
     section 201(a).
       (g) Delegation.--For the purposes of this section, the term 
     ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior acting 
     through the Director of the Minerals Management Service.
       (h) Expanded Royalty Obligations.--Each person liable for 
     royalty payments under this section shall be jointly and 
     severally liable for royalty on all locatable minerals, 
     concentrates, or products derived therefrom lost or wasted 
     from a mining claim located under the general mining laws and 
     maintained in compliance with this Act when such loss or 
     waste is due to negligence on the part of any person or due 
     to the failure to comply with any rule, regulation, or order 
     issued under this section.
       (i) Gross Income From Mining Defined.--For the purposes of 
     this section, for any locatable mineral, the term ``gross 
     income from mining'' has the same meaning as the term ``gross 
     income'' in section 613(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986.
       (j) Effective Date.--The royalty under this section shall 
     take effect with respect to the production of locatable 
     minerals after the enactment of this Act, but any royalty 
     payments attributable to production during the first 12 
     calendar months after the enactment of this Act shall be 
     payable at the expiration of such 12-month period.
       (k) Failure To Comply With Royalty Requirements.--Any 
     person who fails to comply with the requirements of this 
     section or any regulation or order issued to implement this 
     section shall be liable for a civil penalty under section 109 
     of the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act (30 U.S.C. 
     1719) to the same extent as if the claim located under the 
     general mining laws and maintained in compliance with this 
     Act were a lease under that Act.

     SEC. 102. HARDROCK MINING CLAIM MAINTENANCE FEE.

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

     SEC. 103. RECLAMATION FEE.

       (a) Imposition of Fee.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), each 
     operator of a hardrock minerals mining operation shall pay to 
     the Secretary, for deposit in the Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund 
     established by section 201(a), a reclamation fee of 0.3 
     percent of the gross income of the hardrock minerals mining 
     operation for each calendar year.
       (2) Exception.--With respect to any calendar year required 
     under subsection (b), an operator of a hardrock minerals 
     mining operation shall not be required to pay the reclamation 
     fee under paragraph (1) if--
       (A) the gross annual income of the hardrock minerals mining 
     operation for the calendar year is an amount less than 
     $500,000; and
       (B) the hardrock minerals mining operation is comprised 
     of--

[[Page 165]]

       (i) 1 or more hardrock mineral mines located in a single 
     patented claim; or
       (ii) 2 or more contiguous patented claims.
       (b) Payment Deadline.--The reclamation fee shall be paid 
     not later than 60 days after the end of each calendar year 
     beginning with the first calendar year occurring after the 
     date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Deposit of Revenues.--Amounts received by the Secretary 
     under subsection (a)(1) shall be deposited into the Abandoned 
     Mine Cleanup Fund established by section 201(a).
       (d) Effect.--Nothing in this section requires a reduction 
     in, or otherwise affects, any similar fee required under any 
     law (including regulations) of any State.

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

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

                 TITLE II--ABANDONED MINE CLEANUP FUND

     SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF FUND.

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

     SEC. 202. CONTENTS OF FUND.

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

     SEC. 203. USE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE FUND.

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

     SEC. 204. ELIGIBLE LANDS AND WATERS.

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

     SEC. 205. EXPENDITURES.

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

     SEC. 206. AVAILABILITY OF AMOUNTS.

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

                       TITLE III--EFFECTIVE DATE

     SEC. 301. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       This Act shall take effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act, except as otherwise provided in this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Gregg, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 141. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to limit the 
misuse of Social Security numbers, to establish criminal penalties for 
such misuse, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation 
to protect one of Americans' most valuable but vulnerable assets: 
Social Security numbers.
  The bill I am introducing today aims to protect individual privacy 
and prevent identity theft by eliminating the

[[Page 166]]

unnecessary use and display of Social Security numbers.
  I have been working since the 106th Congress to safeguard Social 
Security numbers. I believe that the widespread display and use of 
these numbers poses a significant, and entirely preventable threat to 
personal privacy.
  In 1935, Congress authorized the Social Security Administration to 
issue Social Security numbers as part of the Social Security program. 
Since that time, Social Security numbers have become the best-known and 
easiest way to identify individuals in the United States.
  Use of these numbers has expanded well beyond their original purpose. 
Social Security numbers are now used for everything from credit checks 
to rental agreements to employment verifications, among other purposes. 
They can be found in privately held databases and on public records--
including marriage licenses, professional certifications, and countless 
other public documents--many of which are available on the Internet.
  Once accessed, the numbers act like keys--allowing thieves to open 
credit card and bank accounts and even begin applying for government 
benefits.
  According to the Federal Trade Commission, as many as 10 million 
Americans have their identities stolen by such thieves each year--at a 
combined cost of billions of dollars.
  What's worse, victims often do not realize that a theft has occurred 
until much later, when they learn that their credit has been destroyed 
by unpaid debt on fraudulently opened accounts.
  One thief stole a retired Army captain's military identification card 
and used his Social Security number, listed on the card, to go on a 6-
month, $260,000 shopping spree. By the time the Army captain realized 
what had happened, the thief had opened more than 60 fraudulent 
accounts.
  A single mother of two went to file her taxes and learned that a 
fraudulent return had already been filed in her name by someone else--a 
thief who wanted her refund check.
  A former pro-football player received a phone call notifying him that 
a $1 million home mortgage loan had been approved in his name even 
though he had never applied for such a loan.
  Identity theft is serious. Once an individual's identity is stolen, 
people are often subjected to countless hours and costs attempting to 
regain their good name and credit. In 2004, victims spent an average of 
300 hours recovering from the crime. The crime disrupts lives and can 
destroy finances.
  It also hurts business. A 2006 online survey by the Business Software 
Alliance and Harris Interactive found that nearly 30 percent of adults 
decided to shop online less or not at all during the holiday season 
because of fears about identity theft.
  When people's identities are stolen, they often do not know how the 
thieves obtained their personal information. Social security numbers 
and other key identifying data are displayed and used in such a 
widespread manner that individuals could not successfully restrict 
access themselves.
  Comprehensive limitations on the display of Social Security numbers 
are critically needed.
  The U.S. Government Accountability Office conducted studies of this 
problem in 2002 and 2007. Both times--in studies entitled ``Social 
Security numbers Are Widely Used by Government and Could Be Better 
Protected'' and ``Social Security numbers: Use Is Widespread and Could 
Be Improved''--the GAO concluded that current protections are 
insufficient and that serious vulnerabilities remain.
  The Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act would 
require government agencies and businesses to do more to protect 
Americans' Social Security numbers. The bill would stop the sale or 
display of a person's Social Security number without his or her express 
consent; prevent Federal, State and local governments from displaying 
Social Security numbers on public records posted on the Internet; 
prohibit the printing of Social Security numbers on government checks; 
prohibit the employing of inmates for tasks that give them access to 
the Social Security numbers of other individuals; limit the 
circumstances in which businesses could ask a customer for his or her 
Social Security number; commission a study by the Attorney General 
regarding the current uses of Social Security numbers and the impact on 
privacy and data security; and institute criminal and civil penalties 
for misuse of Social Security numbers.
  This legislation is simple. It is also critical to stopping the 
growing epidemic of identity theft that has been plaguing America and 
its citizens.
  As the President's Identity Theft Task Force reported last year, 
``[i]dentity theft depends on access to . . . data. Reducing the 
opportunities for thieves to get the data is critical to fighting the 
crime.''
  Every agency to study this problem has agreed that the problem will 
continue to grow over time and that action is needed.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Protecting the Privacy of Social 
Security Numbers Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 141

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

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

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

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

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

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

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

[[Page 167]]



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

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Display.--The term `display' means to intentionally 
     communicate or otherwise make available (on the Internet or 
     in any other manner) to the general public an individual's 
     Social Security number.
       ``(2) Person.--The term `person' means any individual, 
     partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, 
     association, or any other entity.
       ``(3) Purchase.--The term `purchase' means providing 
     directly or indirectly, anything of value in exchange for a 
     Social Security number.
       ``(4) Sale.--The term `sale' means obtaining, directly or 
     indirectly, anything of value in exchange for a Social 
     Security number.
       ``(5) State.--The term `State' means any State of the 
     United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the 
     Northern Mariana Islands, the United States Virgin Islands, 
     Guam, American Samoa, and any territory or possession of the 
     United States.
       ``(b) Limitation on Display.--Except as provided in section 
     1028C, no person may display any individual's Social Security 
     number to the general public without the affirmatively 
     expressed consent of the individual.
       ``(c) Limitation on Sale or Purchase.--Except as otherwise 
     provided in this section, no person may sell or purchase any 
     individual's Social Security number without the affirmatively 
     expressed consent of the individual.
       ``(d) Prerequisites for Consent.--In order for consent to 
     exist under subsection (b) or (c), the person displaying or 
     seeking to display, selling or attempting to sell, or 
     purchasing or attempting to purchase, an individual's Social 
     Security number shall--
       ``(1) inform the individual of the general purpose for 
     which the number will be used, the types of persons to whom 
     the number may be available, and the scope of transactions 
     permitted by the consent; and
       ``(2) obtain the affirmatively expressed consent 
     (electronically or in writing) of the individual.
       ``(e) Exceptions.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit or limit the display, sale, or purchase 
     of a Social Security number--
       ``(1) required, authorized, or excepted under any Federal 
     law;
       ``(2) for a public health purpose, including the protection 
     of the health or safety of an individual in an emergency 
     situation;
       ``(3) for a national security purpose;
       ``(4) for a law enforcement purpose, including the 
     investigation of fraud and the enforcement of a child support 
     obligation;
       ``(5) if the display, sale, or purchase of the number is 
     for a use occurring as a result of an interaction between 
     businesses, governments, or business and government 
     (regardless of which entity initiates the interaction), 
     including, but not limited to--
       ``(A) the prevention of fraud (including fraud in 
     protecting an employee's right to employment benefits);
       ``(B) the facilitation of credit checks or the facilitation 
     of background checks of employees, prospective employees, or 
     volunteers;
       ``(C) the retrieval of other information from other 
     businesses, commercial enterprises, government entities, or 
     private nonprofit organizations; or
       ``(D) when the transmission of the number is incidental to, 
     and in the course of, the sale, lease, franchising, or merger 
     of all, or a portion of, a business;
       ``(6) if the transfer of such a number is part of a data 
     matching program involving a Federal, State, or local agency; 
     or
       ``(7) if such number is required to be submitted as part of 
     the process for applying for any type of Federal, State, or 
     local government benefit or program;
     except that, nothing in this subsection shall be construed as 
     permitting a professional or commercial user to display or 
     sell a Social Security number to the general public.
       ``(f) Limitation.--Nothing in this section shall prohibit 
     or limit the display, sale, or purchase of Social Security 
     numbers as permitted under title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 
     Act, or for the purpose of affiliate sharing as permitted 
     under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, except that no entity 
     regulated under such Acts may make Social Security numbers 
     available to the general public, as may be determined by the 
     appropriate regulators under such Acts. For purposes of this 
     subsection, the general public shall not include affiliates 
     or unaffiliated third-party business entities as may be 
     defined by the appropriate regulators.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 1028 the following:

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 168]]

     and local governments of complying with section 1028B.
       ``(B) The benefit to the general public, businesses, 
     commercial enterprises, non-profit organizations, and to 
     Federal, State, and local governments if the Attorney General 
     were to determine that section 1028B should apply to such 
     records.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     47 of title 18, United States Code (as amended by section 
     3(a)(2)), is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
     section 1028B the following:

``1028C. Display, sale, or purchase of public records containing Social 
              Security numbers.''.
       (b) Study and Report on Social Security Numbers in Public 
     Records.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study and prepare a report on Social Security 
     numbers in public records. In developing the report, the 
     Comptroller General shall consult with the Administrative 
     Office of the United States Courts, State and local 
     governments that store, maintain, or disseminate public 
     records, and other stakeholders, including members of the 
     private sector who routinely use public records that contain 
     Social Security numbers.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1). The report shall include a 
     detailed description of the activities and results of the 
     study and recommendations for such legislative action as the 
     Comptroller General considers appropriate. The report, at a 
     minimum, shall include--
       (A) a review of the uses of Social Security numbers in non-
     federal public records;
       (B) a review of the manner in which public records are 
     stored (with separate reviews for both paper records and 
     electronic records);
       (C) a review of the advantages or utility of public records 
     that contain Social Security numbers, including the utility 
     for law enforcement, and for the promotion of homeland 
     security;
       (D) a review of the disadvantages or drawbacks of public 
     records that contain Social Security numbers, including 
     criminal activity, compromised personal privacy, or threats 
     to homeland security;
       (E) the costs and benefits for State and local governments 
     of removing Social Security numbers from public records, 
     including a review of current technologies and procedures for 
     removing Social Security numbers from public records; and
       (F) an assessment of the benefits and costs to businesses, 
     their customers, and the general public of prohibiting the 
     display of Social Security numbers on public records (with 
     separate assessments for both paper records and electronic 
     records).
       (c) Effective Date.--The prohibition with respect to 
     electronic versions of new classes of public records under 
     section 1028C(b) of title 18, United States Code (as added by 
     subsection (a)(1)) shall not take effect until the date that 
     is 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 169]]

       ``(ii) Exemption.--

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

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

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

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

[[Page 170]]

     referred to in subsection (a) was made'' and inserting 
     ``violation occurred''.
       (e) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to 
     violations of sections 1129 and 1129A of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1320-8 and 1320a-8a), as amended by this 
     section, committed after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Violations by government agents in possession of social 
     security numbers.--Section 1129(a)(3)(I) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-8(a)(3)(I)), as added by 
     subsection (b), shall apply with respect to violations of 
     that section occurring on or after the effective date 
     described in section 3(c).
       (f) Repeal.--Section 201 of the Social Security Protection 
     Act of 2004 is repealed.

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

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

     SEC. 10. CIVIL ACTIONS AND CIVIL PENALTIES.

       (a) Civil Action in State Courts.--
       (1) In general.--Any individual aggrieved by an act of any 
     person in violation of this Act or any amendments made by 
     this Act may, if otherwise permitted by the laws or rules of 
     the court of a State, bring in an appropriate court of that 
     State--
       (A) an action to enjoin such violation;
       (B) an action to recover for actual monetary loss from such 
     a violation, or to receive up to $500 in damages for each 
     such violation, whichever is greater; or
       (C) both such actions.
     It shall be an affirmative defense in any action brought 
     under this paragraph that the defendant has established and 
     implemented, with due care, reasonable practices and 
     procedures to effectively prevent violations of the 
     regulations prescribed under this Act. If the court finds 
     that the defendant willfully or knowingly violated the 
     regulations prescribed under this subsection, the court may, 
     in its discretion, increase the amount of the award to an 
     amount equal to not more than 3 times the amount available 
     under subparagraph (B).
       (2) Statute of limitations.--An action may be commenced 
     under this subsection not later than the earlier of--
       (A) 5 years after the date on which the alleged violation 
     occurred; or
       (B) 3 years after the date on which the alleged violation 
     was or should have been reasonably discovered by the 
     aggrieved individual.
       (3) Nonexclusive remedy.--The remedy provided under this 
     subsection shall be in addition to any other remedies 
     available to the individual.
       (b) Civil Penalties.--
       (1) In general.--Any person who the Attorney General 
     determines has violated any section of this Act or of any 
     amendments made by this Act shall be subject, in addition to 
     any other penalties that may be prescribed by law--
       (A) to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each 
     such violation; and
       (B) to a civil penalty of not more than $50,000, if the 
     violations have occurred with such frequency as to constitute 
     a general business practice.
       (2) Determination of violations.--Any willful violation 
     committed contemporaneously with respect to the Social 
     Security numbers of 2 or more individuals by means of mail, 
     telecommunication, or otherwise, shall be treated as a 
     separate violation with respect to each such individual.
       (3) Enforcement procedures.--The provisions of section 
     1128A of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a), other 
     than subsections (a), (b), (f), (h), (i), (j), (m), and (n) 
     and the first sentence of subsection (c) of such section, and 
     the provisions of subsections (d) and (e) of section 205 of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 405) shall apply to a civil penalty 
     action under this subsection in the same manner as such 
     provisions apply to a penalty or proceeding under section 
     1128A(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a(a)), except that, 
     for purposes of this paragraph, any reference in section 
     1128A of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7a) to the Secretary shall 
     be deemed to be a reference to the Attorney General.

     SEC. 11. FEDERAL INJUNCTIVE AUTHORITY.

       In addition to any other enforcement authority conferred 
     under this Act or the amendments made by this Act, the 
     Federal Government shall have injunctive authority with 
     respect to any violation by a public entity of any provision 
     of this Act or of any amendments made by this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 142. A bill to amend titles XIX and XXI of the Social Security Act 
to ensure that every uninsured child in America has health insurance 
coverage, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  MR. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Kids Come First 
Act, legislation to ensure every child in America has access to health 
care coverage. The Kids Come First Act is the first bill I am 
introducing in the 111th Congress because I believe that insuring all 
children must be at the top of the agenda this Congress.
  Long-term health care reform is vital, but we must also do all that 
we can now to make sure our children have access to health care. That 
is why I have incorporated the Small Business Children's Health 
Education Act as part of Kids First this Congress.
  The 111th Congress faces many challenges, from the economic situation 
at home to the continuing conflicts in the Middle East. But perhaps no 
issue bears more directly on the lives of more Americans than health 
care reform. Today, nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, 
including 11 million children. Health care has become a slow-motion 
disaster that is ruining lives and bankrupting families all over the 
country. We cannot stand by as the ranks of the uninsured rise and 
American families find themselves in peril.
  Children from low income households are three times as likely to be 
uninsured and more than 60 percent of uninsured children have at least 
one parent working full time. As we continue to face uncertain economic 
times we must do more for the children of this country who lack health 
coverage. Too many families are struggling with how to make ends meet. 
This is the time to take one worry off their plate and make health 
insurance available for all children.
  The Kids Come First Act calls for a Federal-State partnership to 
mandate health coverage to every child in America. The proposal makes 
states an offer they can't refuse. The Federal Government will pay for 
the most expensive part: enrolling all low-income children in Medicaid, 
automatically. In return, the States will pay to expand coverage to 
higher income children. Under this legislation, States will save more 
than $6 billion a year, and every child will have access to healthcare.
  I think it is unacceptable that in the greatest country in the world, 
millions of children are denied access to the health care they need. 
The Kids Come First Act expands health care coverage for children up to 
the age of 21. Through expanding the programs that work, such as 
Medicaid and SCHIP, we can cover every uninsured child.
  Insuring children improves their health and helps families cover the 
spiraling costs of medical care. Covering all kids will help reduce 
avoidable hospitalizations by 22 percent and replace expensive critical 
care with inexpensive preventative care. Also, when children get the 
medical attention they need, they do better in school.
  To pay for the expansion of health insurance for children, the Kids 
Come First Act includes a provision that provides the Secretary of the 
Treasury with the authority to raise the highest income tax rate of 35 
percent to a rate not higher than 39.6 percent in order to offset the 
costs. Prior to the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 
Reconciliation Act of 2001, the top marginal rate was 39.6 percent. 
Less than one percent of taxpayers pay the top rate and for 2009, this 
rate only affects individuals with income above $372,950.
  In addition to expanding access to health insurance, we need to 
improve enrollment of eligible children. In February 2007, the Urban 
Institute reported that among those eligible for the State Children's 
Health Insurance Program, children whose families are self-employed or 
who work for small business concerns are far less likely to be 
enrolled. Specifically, one out of

[[Page 171]]

every four eligible children with parents working for a small business 
or are self-employed are not currently enrolled. This compares with 
just 1 out of every 10 eligible children whose parents work for a large 
firm.
  We need to do a better job of informing and educating America's small 
business owners and employees of the options that may be available for 
covering uninsured children. To that effect, the Kids Come First Act 
includes a provision that creates an intergovernmental task force, 
consisting of the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor and 
the Secretary of the Treasury, to conduct a campaign to enroll kids of 
small business employees who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but 
are not currently enrolled. To educate America's small businesses on 
the availability of SCHIP and Medicaid, the task force will make use of 
the Small Business Administration's business partners, including the 
Service Corps of Retired Executives, the Small Business Development 
Centers, Certified Development Companies, and Women's Business Centers, 
and with chambers of commerce across the country.
  Additionally, the Small Business Administration is directed to post 
SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility criteria and enrollment information on 
its website, and to report back to the Senate and House Committees on 
Small Business regarding the status and successes of the task force's 
efforts to enroll eligible kids.
  Health care for our children is a top priority that we must address. 
I believe it can be done in a fiscally responsible manner. We must 
invest our resources in our future by improving health care for 
children.
  Since I first introduced the Kids Come First Act in the 109th 
Congress, more than 500,000 people have shown their support for the 
bill by becoming Citizen Cosponsors and another 20,000 Americans called 
into our ``Give Voices to Our Values'' hotline to share their personal 
stories.
  It is clear that providing health care coverage for our uninsured 
children is a priority for our nation's workers, businesses, and health 
care community. They know, as I do, that further delay only results in 
graver health problems for America's children. Their future, and ours, 
depends on us doing better. I urge my colleagues to support and help 
enact the Kids Come First Act during this Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 143. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for a college opportunity tax credit; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the College 
Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009. This legislation creates a new tax 
credit that will put the cost of higher education in reach for American 
families.
  According to a recent College Board report tuition is rising at both 
public and private institutions. On average, the tuition at a private 
college this year is $25,143, up 5.9 percent from last year, and the 
tuition at a public college $6,585, up 6.4 percent from last year.
  Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are 
keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around 
Massachusetts, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not 
be able to pay for their children's college. These parents know that 
earning a college education will result in greater earnings for their 
children and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the 
greatest opportunities possible.
  In 1997, the Congress implemented two new tax credits to make college 
affordable--the HOPE and the Lifetime Learning credits. These tax 
credits have put college in reach for families, but I believe we can do 
more.
  The HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits are not refundable, and 
therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to 
receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college 
students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too 
low. In order to receive the full benefit of the Lifetime Learning 
credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This 
is more than $3,000 the average annual public 4-year college tuition 
more than three times the average annual tuition of a 2-year community 
college. About 56 percent of college students attend schools with 
tuition and fees under $9,000.
  In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost 
of 4 years of college. Currently the HOPE credit applies only to the 
first 2 years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 
2009 helps students and parents afford all four years of college. It 
also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of the 
suggestions made by experts at a Finance Committee hearing held during 
the 109th Congress. My legislation creates a new credit, the College 
Opportunity Tax Credit, COTC, that replaces the existing HOPE credit 
and Lifetime Learning credit and ultimately makes these benefits more 
generous.
  The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax 
credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half-
time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first 
$2,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit for the next 
$4,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $4,000 each year per 
student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time 
students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for 
the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the 
first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next 
$3,000 of expenses.
  Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with 
tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit 
and the Lifetime Learning credit apply to the COTC. These amounts are 
indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses. This 
legislation is only for taxable years beginning in 2009 and 2010 in 
order to make colleges affordable during these difficult financial 
times. It will also give the Congress additional time to work on a 
permanent solution to help with the rising cost of a college education.
  The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009 simplifies the 
existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will 
enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that 
many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax 
credit for college education a reality this Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 144. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove 
cell phones from listed property under section 280F; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I are 
reintroducing the MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2009, Modernize Our 
Bookkeeping in the Law for Employee's Cell Phone Act of 2009. Last 
Congress, 60 Senators cosponsored this legislation which would update 
the tax treatment of cell phones and mobile communication devices.
  During the past 20 years, the use of cell phone and mobile 
communication devices has skyrocketed. Cell phones are no longer viewed 
as an executive perk or a luxury item. They no longer resemble 
suitcases or are hardwired to the floor of an automobile. Cell phone 
and mobile communication devices are now part of daily business 
practices at all levels.
  In 1989, Congress passed a law which added cell phones to the 
definition of listed property under section 280F(d)(4) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986. Treating cell phones as listed property requires 
substantial documentation in order for cell phones to benefit from 
accelerated depreciation and not be treated as taxable income to the 
employee. This documentation is required to substantiate that the cell 
phone is used for business purposes more than 50 percent of the time. 
Generally, listed property is property that inherently lends itself to 
personal use, such as automobiles.

[[Page 172]]

  Back in 1989, cell phone technology was an expensive technology 
worthy of detailed log sheets. At that time, it was difficult to 
envision cell phones that could be placed in a pocket or handbag. 
Congress was skeptical about the daily business use of cell phones.
  Technological advances have revolutionized the cell phone and mobile 
communication device industries. Twenty years ago, no one could have 
imagined the role BlackBerries play in our day-to-day communications. 
Cell phones and mobile communication devices are now widespread 
throughout all types of businesses. Employers provide their employees 
with these devices to enable them to remain connected 24 hours a day, 7 
days a week. The cost of the devices has been reduced and most 
providers offer unlimited airtime for one monthly rate.
  Recently, the Internal Revenue Service reminded field examiners of 
the substantiation rules for cell phones as listed property. The 
current rule requires employers to maintain expensive and detailed 
logs, and employers caught without cell phone logs could face tax 
penalties.
  The MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2009 updates the tax treatment of cell 
phones and mobile communication devices by repealing the requirement 
that employers maintain detailed logs. The tax code should keep pace 
with technological advances. There is no longer a reason that cell 
phones and mobile communication devices should be treated differently 
than office phones or computers. Last, Congress 60 Senators cosponsored 
this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
change.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, 
        Mr. Schumer, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 146. A bill to amend the Federal antitrust laws to provide 
expanded coverage and to eliminate exemptions from such laws that are 
contrary to the public interest with respect to railroads; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
essential to restoring competition to the nation's crucial freight 
railroad sector. Freight railroads are essential to shipping a myriad 
of vital goods, everything from coal used to generate electricity to 
grain used for basic foodstuffs. But for decades the freight railroads 
have been insulated from the normal rules of competition followed by 
almost all other parts of our economy by an outmoded and unwarranted 
antitrust exemption. So today I am introducing along with my 
colleagues, Senators Vitter, Leahy, Feingold, Schumer, Rockefeller, 
Dorgan and Klobuchar, the Railroad Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009. 
This legislation will eliminate the obsolete antitrust exemptions that 
protect freight railroads from competition. This legislation is 
identical to the legislation that was reported out of the Judiciary 
Committee in the last Congress without dissent.
  Our legislation will eliminate obsolete antitrust exemptions that 
protect freight railroads from competition and result in higher prices 
to millions of consumers every day. Consolidation in the railroad 
industry in recent years has resulted in only four Class I railroads 
providing over 90 percent of the nation's freight rail transportation. 
The lack of competition was documented in an October 2006 Government 
Accountability Office report. That report found that shippers in many 
geographic areas ``may be paying excessive rates due to a lack of 
competition in these markets.'' These unjustified cost increases cause 
consumers to suffer higher electricity bills because a utility must pay 
for the high cost of transporting coal, result in higher prices for 
goods produced by manufacturers who rely on railroads to transport raw 
materials, and reduce earnings for American farmers who ship their 
products by rail and raise food prices paid by consumers.
  The ill-effects of this consolidation are exemplified in the case of 
``captive shippers''--industries served by only one railroad. Over the 
past several years, these captive shippers have faced spiking rail 
rates. They are the victims of the monopolistic practices and price 
gouging by the single railroad that serves them, price increases which 
they are forced to pass along into the price of their products, and 
ultimately, to consumers. And in many cases, the ordinary protections 
of antitrust law are unavailable to these captive shippers--instead, 
the railroads are protected by a series of outmoded exemptions from the 
normal rules of antitrust law to which all other industries must abide. 
In August 2006, the Attorneys General of 17 states and the District of 
Columbia sent a letter to Congress citing problems due to a lack of 
competition and asked that the antitrust exemptions be removed.
  These unwarranted antitrust exemptions have put the American consumer 
at risk, and in Wisconsin, victims of a lack of railroad competition 
abound. A coalition has formed, consisting of about 40 affected 
organizations--Badger CURE. From Dairyland Power Cooperative in La 
Crosse to Wolf River Lumber in New London, companies in my state are 
feeling the crunch of years of railroad consolidation. To help offset a 
93 percent increase in shipping rates in 2006, Dairyland Power 
Cooperative had to raise electricity rates by 20 percent. The 
reliability, efficiency, and affordability of freight rail have all 
declined, and Wisconsin consumers feel the pinch.
  Similar stories exist across the country. We held a hearing at the 
Antitrust Subcommittee in September 2007 which detailed numerous 
instances of anti-competitive conduct by the dominant freight railroads 
and at which railroad shippers testified as to the need to repeal the 
outmoded and unwarranted antitrust exemptions which left them without 
remedies. Dozens of organizations, unions and trade groups--including 
the American Public Power Association, the American Chemistry Council, 
American Corn Growers Associations and many more affected by 
monopolistic railroad conduct endorsed the Railroad Antitrust 
Enforcement Act in the last Congress.
  The current antitrust exemptions protect a wide range of railroad 
industry conduct from scrutiny by governmental antitrust enforcers. 
Railroad mergers and acquisitions are exempt from antitrust law and are 
reviewed solely by the Surface Transportation Board. Railroads that 
engage in collective ratemaking are also exempt from antitrust law. 
Railroads subject to the regulation of the Surface Transportation Board 
are also exempt from private antitrust lawsuits seeking the termination 
of anticompetitive practices via injunctive relief. Our bill will 
eliminate these exemptions.
  No good reason exists for them. While railroad legislation in recent 
decades--including most notably the Staggers Rail Act of 1980--
deregulated much railroad rate setting from the oversight of the 
Surface Transportation Board, these obsolete antitrust exemptions 
remained in place, insulating a consolidating industry from obeying the 
rules of fair competition. And there is no reason to treat railroads 
any differently from dozens of other regulated industries in our 
economy that are fully subject to antitrust law--whether the 
telecommunications sector regulated by the FCC, or the aviation 
industry regulation by the Department of Transportation, to name just 
two examples.
  Our bill will bring railroad mergers and acquisitions under the 
purview of the Clayton Act, allowing the Federal government, state 
attorneys general and private parties to file suit to enjoin 
anticompetitive mergers and acquisitions. It will restore the review of 
these mergers to the agencies where they belong--the Justice 
Department's Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission. It 
will eliminate the exemption that prevents FTC's scrutiny of railroad 
common carriers. It will eliminate the antitrust exemption for railroad 
collective ratemaking. It will allow state attorneys general and other 
private parties to sue railroads for treble damages and injunctive 
relief for violations of the antitrust laws, including collusion that 
leads to excessive and unreasonable rates. This legislation will force 
railroads to play

[[Page 173]]

by the rules of free competition like all other businesses.
  In sum, by clearing out this thicket of outmoded antitrust 
exemptions, railroads will be subject to the same laws as the rest of 
the economy. Government antitrust enforcers will finally have the tools 
to prevent anti-competitive transactions and practices by railroads. 
Likewise, private parties will be able to utilize the antitrust laws to 
deter anti-competitive conduct and to seek redress for their injuries.
  It is time to put an end to the abusive practices of the Nation's 
freight railroads. On the Antitrust Subcommittee, we have seen that in 
industry after industry, vigorous application of our Nation's antitrust 
laws is the best way to eliminate barriers to competition, to end 
monopolistic behavior, to keep prices low and quality of service high. 
The railroad industry is no different. All those who rely on railroads 
to ship their products--whether it is an electric utility for its coal, 
a farmer to ship grain, or a factory to acquire its raw materials or 
ship out its finished product--deserve the full application of the 
antitrust laws to end the anti-competitive abuses all too prevalent in 
this industry today. I urge my colleagues support the Railroad 
Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 146

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Railroad Antitrust 
     Enforcement Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. INJUNCTIONS AGAINST RAILROAD COMMON CARRIERS.

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

     SEC. 3. MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS OF RAILROADS.

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

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION.

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

     SEC. 5. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Clayton Act.--Section 11(a) of the Clayton Act (15 
     U.S.C. 21(a)) is amended by striking ``subject to 
     jurisdiction'' and all that follows through the first 
     semicolon and inserting ``subject to jurisdiction under 
     subtitle IV of title 49, United States Code (except for 
     agreements described in section 10706 of that title and 
     transactions described in section 11321 of that title);''.
       (b) FTC Act.--Section 5(a)(2) of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(2)) is amended by striking 
     ``common carriers subject'' and inserting ``common carriers, 
     except for railroads, subject''.

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

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

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF EXEMPTIONS IN TITLE 49.

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

``10706. Rate agreements.''.

     SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE.

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

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to thank the senior Senator 
from Wisconsin for his hard work to address antitrust issues in the 
rail industry along with other industries as Chairman of the Antitrust, 
Competition Policy and Consumer Rights Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee. I have been pleased to support his efforts to bring 
antitrust scrutiny to the large freight railroads since he first 
introduced a version of this legislation in 2006. As Senator Kohl well 
knows, this is a vitally important issue for rail customers and 
ultimately consumers both in Wisconsin and across the country.

[[Page 174]]

  Over the past several years, I have heard more and more comments and 
concerns from freight rail customers at my town hall meetings in 
Wisconsin and my meetings in Washington. The concerns have come from 
constituents who rely on freight railroads to transport their goods or 
receive raw materials. The comments I have heard have been diverse by 
industry, ranging from forestry, energy, farming, and petrochemical 
companies to various manufacturers, and by size, from family owned 
enterprises to large corporations. The problems they have described do 
not seem to be isolated incidents, but instead suggest a systematic 
continuing problem.
  There are several general concerns that seem to apply no matter which 
class of railroad is discussed. While outright refusals of transport 
may be rare, several of my constituents have found it difficult to get 
timely estimates of costs for carriage for their cargo. This seems to 
especially be a problem for short distances or small loads, or if the 
cargo is only on the originating railroads' tracks for a short 
distance. Many have said that they feel like second-class citizens, 
denied the better service and dedicated trains that the long-haul 
receive.
  I have also heard about problems with changes to transportation 
schedules, and problems with rail car delivery and ancillary services 
such as scales. Many rail customers seem to feel that as railroads 
continued to merge over the past two decades, service, especially for 
small customers, has declined dramatically. Again, this seems to 
especially affect small railroad customers who are dependent on rail 
transport, but face difficulty in receiving cars to fill, moving filled 
cars in a timely manner or weighing their loads.
  Of course cost is also an issue, but it is not just the cost of 
transportation. Some rail customers feel that the Surface 
Transportation Board, STB, complaint process is too costly, slow and 
tilted in favor of the railroads over the customers. They contend that 
these hurdles to exposing anticompetitive practices have the effect of 
perpetuating the unfair treatment and excessive rates they experience.
  Senator Kohl's proposal would remove the current railroad antitrust 
exemptions so that railroads would be covered like other segments of 
industry. The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission 
would then have the authority to review mergers and block anti-
competitive mergers. The legislation would also expand the ability of 
State Attorneys General and private parties to halt anti-competitive 
behavior and seek up to treble damages for any such violations.
  I believe this is a very reasonable and measured proposal as 
evidenced by the bill being passed out of the Judiciary Committee in 
the previous Congress by voice vote. I look forward to supporting 
Senator Kohl's efforts to move the legislation through committee again 
and push for its passage into law during the current Congress.
  While I hope that providing the Department of Justice the authority 
to review possible antitrust violations as proposed in the current bill 
will improve the situation for many shippers, it may have to go hand-
in-hand with reforms at the STB as were contemplated in the previous 
Congress by Senator Rockefeller's Railroad Competition and Service 
Improvements Act of 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Wyden, and 
        Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 147. A bill to require the closure of the detention facility at 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to limit the use of certain interrogation 
techniques, to prohibit interrogation by contractors, to require 
notification of the International Committee of the Red Cross of 
detainees, and for other purposes; to the Select Committee on 
Intelligence.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Today, I am introducing the Lawful Interrogation and 
Detention Act of 2009--legislation intended to reverse the harmful, 
dangerous, un-American, and illegal detention and interrogation 
practices of the past seven years.
  As I will describe in detail below, the four provisions in this bill 
would: Close the Guantanamo Bay detention centers, outlaw CIA's 
coercive interrogation program, prevent the use of contractor 
interrogations, and end secret detention at CIA black sites.
  These practices have brought shame to our nation, have harmed our 
ability to fight the war on terror, and, I believe, violate U.S. law 
and international treaty obligations.
  As was made crystal clear on last November 4, we need change and we 
need a new direction. When it comes to the war on terrorism, we need to 
disavow ``the Dark Side'' so embraced by the Bush administration. 
Instead, we need to follow our approach honed through the Cold War: 
standing by the strength of our values and ideals, building strong 
partnerships with allies, and mixing soft power with the force of our 
military might.
  This legislation would put us back on the right track and I believe 
it to be fully consistent with the policies and intentions of 
President-elect Obama.
  It is time to end the failed experiment at Guantanamo Bay. It is time 
to repudiate torture and secret disappearances. It is time to end the 
outsourcing of coercive interrogations to outside mercenaries. It is 
time to return to the norms and values that have driven the United 
States to greatness since the days of George Washington, but have been 
tarnished in the past 7 years.
  First, this legislation requires the President to close the detention 
facilities at Guantanamo Bay within 12 months.
  The need to close Guantanamo is clear. Along with the abuses at Abu 
Ghraib, Guantanamo has been decried as American hypocrisy and cruelty 
throughout the world. They have given aid in recruiting to our enemies, 
and have been named by Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora as the leading 
causes of death to U.S. troops in Iraq.
  Numerous reports, most recently one completed and approved 
unanimously by the Senate Armed Services Committee, have documented the 
abusive methods used at Guantanamo.
  Beyond the physical, psychological, and emotional abuse witnessed at 
Guantanamo, it has been the source of great legal embarrassment. The 
Supreme Court has struck down the Bush administration's legal reasoning 
four separate times: in the Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan, and Boumediene 
decisions.
  It was explicitly created to be a separate and lesser system of 
justice, to hold people captured on or near the battlefield in 
Afghanistan indefinitely. It has produced exactly three convictions, 
including Australian David Hicks who agreed to a plea bargain to get 
off the island, and Osama bin Ladin's driver, Salim Hamdan, who has 
already served almost all of his sentence through time already spent at 
Guantanamo.
  The hard part about closing Guantanamo is not deciding to do it--it 
is figuring out what to do with the remaining detainees.
  Under the Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act, the approximately 
250 individuals now being held there would be handled in one of five 
ways:
  They could be charged with a crime and tried in the United States in 
the Federal civilian or military justice systems. These systems have 
handled terrorists and other dangerous individuals before, and are 
capable of dealing with classified evidence and other unusual factors.
  Individuals could be transferred to an international tribunal to hold 
hearings, if such a tribunal is created; detainees could be returned to 
their native countries, or if that is not possible, they could be 
transferred to a third country.
  To date, more than 500 men have been sent from Guantanamo to the 
custody other countries. Recently, Portugal and other nations have 
suggested they would be open to taking some of the remaining detainees 
as a way to help close Guantanamo.
  If there are detainees who can't be charged with crimes or 
transferred to the custody of another country, there is a fourth 
option. If the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National 
Intelligence agree that an individual poses no security threat to the 
United

[[Page 175]]

States, the U.S. Government may release him.
  This may work, for example, for the Chinese Uighurs remaining at 
Guantanamo. In fact, a Federal court has already ordered that this 
group be released into the country, though that ruling has been stayed 
upon appeal.
  Finally, for detainees who cannot be addressed in any of the first 
four options, the Executive Branch could hold them under the existing 
authorities provided by the law of armed conflict.
  I believe that these options provide sufficient flexibility to handle 
the 250 or so people now being held at Guantanamo. If the incoming 
Obama Administration decides that other alternatives are needed, it 
should come to Congress, explain the specifics of the problem, and we 
will work toward a joint legislative solution.
  The other three provisions in this legislation end parts of the CIA's 
secret detention and interrogation program.
  Some of the details of the program are already publicly known, like 
the use of waterboarding on three individuals. Other aspects remain 
secret, such as the other authorized interrogation techniques and how 
they were used.
  There have been public allegations of multiple deaths of detainees in 
CIA custody. There was one conviction of a CIA contractor in the death 
of a detainee in Afghanistan, but other details remain classified.
  But it is well known that on August 1, 2002, the Justice Department 
approved coercive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, 
for the CIA's use. This despite the fact that the Justice Department 
has prosecuted the use of waterboarding and the State Department has 
decried it overseas.
  The Administration used warped logic and faulty reasoning to say 
waterboarding technique was not torture. It is.
  Other interrogation techniques used by the CIA have not been 
acknowledged but are still authorized for use. This has to end.
  But we will never turn this sad page in our nation's history until 
all coercive techniques are banned, and are replaced with a single, 
clear, uniform standard across the United States Government.
  That standard established by this legislation is the interrogation 
protocols set out in the Army Field Manual. The 19 specified techniques 
work for the military and operate under the same framework as the time-
honored approach of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. If the CIA 
would abide by its terms, it would work for the CIA as well.
  These techniques were at the heart of former FBI Special Agent Jack 
Cloonan's successful interrogation of those responsible for the 1993 
World Trade Center bombing. They were also the tools used by Special 
Agent George Piro to get Saddam Hussein to provide the evidence that 
resulted in his death sentence.
  We have powerful expert testimony that the Army Field Manual 
techniques work against terrorist suspects. The Manual's use across the 
government is supported by scores of retired generals and admirals, by 
General David Petraeus, and by former secretaries of state and national 
security advisors in both parties.
  Majorities in both houses of Congress passed this provision last year 
as part of the Fiscal Year 2008 Intelligence Authorization bill, 
sending a clear message that we do not support coercive interrogations.
  Regrettably, the President's veto stopped it from becoming law.
  The new President agrees that we need to end coercive interrogations 
and to comply strictly to the terms of the Convention Against Torture 
and the Geneva Conventions. I look forward to working with him to end 
this sad story in the Nation's history.
  The third part of this legislation is a ban on contractor 
interrogators at the CIA. As General Hayden has testified, the CIA 
hires and keeps on contract people who are not intelligence 
professionals and whose sole job is to ``break'' detainees and get them 
to talk.
  I firmly believe that outsourcing interrogations, whether coercive or 
more appropriate ones, to private companies is a way to diminish 
accountability and to avoid getting the Agency's hands dirty. I also 
believe that the use of contractors leads to more brutal interrogations 
than if they were done by government employees.
  There are surely areas where paying contractors makes practical and 
financial sense. Interrogations--a form of collecting intelligence--is 
not one of them. This has become a major diplomatic issue, a key 
obstacle in prosecuting people like Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaykh 
Mohammed, and a national black eye. It is not the sort of thing to be 
done at arm's length.
  The fourth and final provision in this legislation requires that the 
CIA and other intelligence agencies provide notification to the 
International Committee of the Red Cross--the ICRC--of their detainees. 
Following notification, the CIA will be required to provide ICRC 
officials with access to their detainees in the same way that the 
military does.
  Access by the ICRC is a hallmark of international law and is required 
by the Geneva Conventions. Access to a third party, and the ICRC in 
particular, was seen by the U.S. in 1947 as a guarantee that American 
men and women would be protected if they were ever captured overseas.
  But ICRC access has been denied at CIA black sites, just like it had 
been in some military-run facilities in the war on terror. This has, in 
part, opened the door to the abuses in detainee treatment. Independent 
access prevents abuses like we witnessed at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo 
Bay. It is time that the same protection is in place for the CIA as has 
been demanded of the Department of Defense.
  We remain a nation at war, and credible, actionable intelligence 
remains a cornerstone of our war effort. But this is a war that will be 
won by fighting smarter, not by sinking to the depths of our enemies.
  Our Nation has paid an enormous price because of these 
interrogations.
  They cast shadow and doubt over our ideals and our system of justice.
  Our enemies have used our practices to recruit more extremists.
  Our key global partnerships, crucial to winning the war on terror, 
have been strained.
  It will take time to resume our place as the world's beacon of 
liberty and justice. This bill will put us on that path and start the 
process. I urge its passage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 147

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lawful Interrogation and 
     Detention Act''.

     SEC. 2. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY DEFINED.

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

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

       (a) Requirement to Close.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall close 
     the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba operated by 
     the Secretary of Defense and remove all detainees from such 
     facility.
       (b) Detainees.--Prior to the date that the President closes 
     the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as required 
     by subsection (a), each individual detained at such facility 
     shall be treated exclusively through one of the following:
       (1) The individual shall be charged with a violation of 
     United States or international law and transferred to a 
     military or Federal civilian detention facility in the United 
     States for further legal proceedings, provided that such a 
     Federal civilian facility or military facility has received 
     the highest security rating available for such a facility.
       (2) The individual shall be transferred to an international 
     tribunal operating under the authority of the United Nations 
     that has jurisdiction to hold a trial of such individual.
       (3) The individual shall be transferred to the custody of 
     the government of the individual's country of citizenship or 
     a different country, provided that such transfer is 
     consistent with--

[[Page 176]]

       (A) the Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of 
     Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment done at 
     New York, December 10, 1984;
       (B) all relevant United States law; and
       (C) any other international obligation of the United 
     States.
       (4) If the Secretary of Defense and Director of National 
     Intelligence determine, jointly, that the individual poses no 
     security threat to the United States and actions cannot be 
     taken under paragraph (1) or (3), the individual shall be 
     released from further detention.
       (5) The individual shall be held in accordance with the law 
     of armed conflict.
       (c) Reporting Requirements.--
       (1) Requirement for report.--Not later than 90 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall 
     submit to Congress a report that describes the President's 
     plan to implement this section.
       (2) Requirement to update.--The President shall keep 
     Congress fully and currently informed of the steps taken to 
     implement this section.
       (d) Construction.--
       (1) Immigration status.--The transfer of an individual 
     under subsection (b) shall not be considered an entry into 
     the United States for purposes of immigration status.
       (2) No additional detention authority.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed as altering or adding to existing 
     authorities for, or restrictions on, the detention, 
     treatment, or transfer of individuals in United States 
     custody.

     SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.

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

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION ON INTERROGATIONS BY CONTRACTORS.

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

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

       (a) Requirement.--The head of an element of the 
     intelligence community or a contractor or subcontractor of 
     such element who detains or has custody or effective control 
     of an individual shall notify the International Committee of 
     the Red Cross of the detention of the individual and provide 
     access to such individual in a manner consistent with the 
     practices of the Armed Forces.
       (b) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed--
       (1) to create or otherwise imply the authority to detain; 
     or
       (2) to limit or otherwise affect any other rights or 
     obligations which may arise under the Geneva Conventions, 
     other international agreements, or other laws, or to state 
     all of the situations under which notification to and access 
     for the International Committee of the Red Cross is required 
     or allowed.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 148. A bill to restore the rule that agreements between 
manufacturers and retailers, distributors, or wholesalers to set the 
minimum price below which the manufacturer's product or service cannot 
be sold violates the Sherman Act; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
essential to consumers receiving the best prices on every product from 
electronics to clothing to groceries. My bill, the Discount Pricing 
Consumer Protection Act, will restore the nearly century old rule that 
it is illegal under antitrust law for a manufacturer to set a minimum 
price below which a retailer cannot sell the manufacturer's product, a 
practice known as ``resale price maintenance'' or ``vertical price 
fixing''. In June 2007, overturning a 96-year-old precedent, a narrow 
5-4 Supreme Court majority in the Leegin case incorrectly interpreted 
the Sherman Act to overturn this basic rule of the marketplace which 
has served consumers well for nearly a century. My bill--identical to 
legislation I introduced in 2007 (S. 2261 in the 110th Congress)--will 
correct this misinterpretation of antitrust law and restore the per se 
ban on vertical price fixing. Our bill has been endorsed by 34 state 
attorneys general as well as numerous antitrust experts, including 
former FTC Chairman Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour.
  The reasons for this legislation are compelling. Allowing 
manufacturers to set minimum retail prices will threaten the very 
existence of discounting and discount stores, and lead to higher prices 
for consumers. For nearly a century the rule against vertical price 
fixing permitted discounters to sell goods at the most competitive 
price. Many credit this rule with the rise of today's low price, 
discount retail giants--stores like Target, Best Buy, Walmart, and the 
Internet sites Amazon and EBay, which offer consumers a wide array of 
highly desired products at discount prices.
  From my own personal experience in business I know of the dangers of 
permitting vertical price fixing. My family started the Kohl's 
department stores in 1962, and I worked there for many years before we 
sold the stores in the 1980s. On several occasions, we lost lines of 
merchandise because we tried to sell at prices lower than what the 
manufacturer and our rival retailers wanted. For example, when we 
started Kohl's and were just a small competitor to the established 
retail giants, we had serious difficulties obtaining the leading brand 
name jeans. The traditional department stores demanded that the 
manufacturer not sell to us unless we would agree to maintain a certain 
minimum price. Because they didn't want to lose the business of their 
biggest customers, that jeans manufacturer acquiesced in the demands of 
the department stores--at least until our lawyers told them that they 
were violating the rule against vertical price fixing.
  So I know firsthand the dangers to competition and discounting of 
permitting the practice of vertical price fixing. But we don't need to 
rely on my own experience. For nearly 40 years until 1975 when Congress 
passed the Consumer Goods Pricing Act, Federal law permitted States to 
enact so-called ``fair trade'' laws legalizing vertical price fixing. 
Studies Department of Justice conducted in the late 1960s indicated 
that prices were between 18-27 percent higher in the States that 
allowed vertical price fixing than the States that had not passed such 
``fair trade'' laws, costing consumers at least $ 2.1 billion per year 
at that time.
  Given the tremendous economic growth in the intervening decades, the 
likely harm to consumers if vertical price fixing were permitted is 
even grater today. In his dissenting opinion in the Leegin case, 
Justice Breyer estimated that if only 10 percent of manufacturers 
engaged in vertical price fixing, the volume of commerce affected today 
would be $ 300 billion, translating into retail bills that would 
average $ 750 to $ 1,000 higher for the average family of four every 
year.
  And the experience of the last year and a half since the Leegin 
decision is beginning to confirm our fears regarding the dangers from 
permitting vertical price fixing. In December 2008, for example, Sony 
announced that it would implement a no-discount rule to retailer's 
selling some of its most in-demand products, including some models of 
high-end flat screen TVs and digital cameras. On December 4, 2008, the 
Wall Street Journal reported that a new business has materialized for 
companies that scour the Internet in search of retailers selling 
products at a bargain. When such bargain sellers are detected, the 
manufacturer is alerted so that they can demand the seller end the 
discounting of its product. The chilling effect on discounting of such 
tactics is clear--in one example, the Wall Street Journal reported that 
Circuit City was forced to raise its retail price for an LG flat screen 
TV by $ 170 to nearly $ 1,600 after its discount price was discovered 
on the Internet.
  Defenders of the Leegin decision argue that today's giant retailers 
such as Walmart, Best Buy or Target can ``take care of themselves'' and 
have sufficient market power to fight manufacturer efforts to impose 
retail prices. Whatever the merits of that argument, I am particularly 
worried about the effect of this new rule permitting minimum vertical 
price fixing on the next generation of discount retailers. If new 
discount retailers can be prevented from selling products at a discount 
at the behest of an established retailer worried about the competition, 
we will

[[Page 177]]

imperil an essential element of retail competition so beneficial to 
consumers.
  In overturning the per se ban on vertical price fixing, the Supreme 
Court in Leegin announced this practice should instead be evaluated 
under what is known as the ``rule of reason.'' Under the rule of 
reason, a business practice is illegal only if it imposes an 
``unreasonable'' restraint on competition. The burden is on the party 
challenging the practice to prove in court that the anti-competitive 
effects of the practice outweigh its justifications. In the words of 
the Supreme Court, the party challenging the practice must establish 
the restraint's ``history, nature and effect.'' Whether the businesses 
involved possess market power ``is a further, significant 
consideration'' under the rule of reason.
  In short, establishing that any specific example of vertical price 
fixing violates the rule of reason is an onerous and difficult burden 
for a plaintiff in an antitrust case. Parties complaining about 
vertical price fixing are likely to be small discount stores with 
limited resources to engage in lengthy and complicated antitrust 
litigation. These plaintiffs are unlikely to possess the facts 
necessary to make the extensive showing necessary to prove a case under 
the ``rule of reason.'' In the words of FTC Commissioner Pamela Jones 
Harbour, applying the rule of reason to vertical price fixing ``is a 
virtual euphemism for per se legality.''
  In July 2007, our Antitrust Subcommittee conducted an extensive 
hearing into the Leegin decision and the likely effects of abolishing 
the ban on vertical price fixing. Both former FTC Chairman Robert 
Pitofsky and current FTC Commissioner Harbour strongly endorsed 
restoring the ban on vertical price fixing. Marcy Syms, CEO of the Syms 
discount clothing stores, did so as well, citing the likely dangers to 
the ability of discounters such as Syms to survive after abolition of 
the rule against vertical price fixing. Ms. Syms also stated that ``it 
would be very unlikely for her to bring an antitrust suit'' challenging 
vertical price fixing under the rule of reason because her company 
``would not have the resources, knowledge or a strong enough position 
in the marketplace to make such action prudent.'' Our examination of 
this issue has produced compelling evidence for the continued necessity 
of a ban on vertical price fixing to protect discounting and low prices 
for consumers.
  The Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act will accomplish this 
goal. My legislation is quite simple and direct. It would simply add 
one sentence to Section 1 of the Sherman Act--the basic provision 
addressing combinations in restraint of trade--a statement that any 
agreement with a retailer, wholesaler or distributor setting a price 
below which a product or service cannot be sold violates the law. No 
balancing or protracted legal proceedings will be necessary. Should a 
manufacturer enter into such an agreement it will unquestionably 
violate antitrust law. The uncertainty and legal impediments to 
antitrust enforcement of vertical price fixing will be replaced by 
simple and clear legal rule--a legal rule that will promote low prices 
and discount competition to the benefit of consumers every day.
  In the last few decades, millions of consumers have benefited from an 
explosion of retail competition from new large discounters in virtually 
every product, from clothing to electronics to groceries, in both ``big 
box'' stores and on the Internet. Our legislation will correct the 
Supreme Court's abrupt change to antitrust law, and will ensure that 
today's vibrant competitive retail marketplace and the savings gained 
by American consumers from discounting will not be jeopardized by the 
abolition of the ban on vertical price fixing. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 148

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Discount Pricing Consumer 
     Protection Act''.

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

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) From 1911 in the Dr. Miles decision until June 2007 in 
     the Leegin decision, the Supreme Court had ruled that the 
     Sherman Act forbid in all circumstances the practice of a 
     manufacturer setting a minimum price below which any 
     retailer, wholesaler or distributor could not sell the 
     manufacturer's product (the practice of ``resale price 
     maintenance'' or ``vertical price fixing'').
       (2) The rule of per se illegality forbidding resale price 
     maintenance promoted price competition and the practice of 
     discounting all to the substantial benefit of consumers and 
     the health of the economy.
       (3) Many economic studies showed that the rule against 
     resale price maintenance led to lower prices and promoted 
     consumer welfare.
       (4) Abandoning the rule against resale price maintenance 
     will likely lead to higher prices paid by consumers and 
     substantially harms the ability of discount retail stores to 
     compete. For 40 years prior to 1975, Federal law permitted 
     states to enact so-called ``fair trade'' laws allowing 
     vertical price fixing. Studies conducted by the Department of 
     Justice in the late 1960s indicated that retail prices were 
     between 18 and 27 percent higher in states that allowed 
     vertical price fixing than those that did not. Likewise, a 
     1983 study by the Bureau of Economics of the Federal Trade 
     Commission found that, in most cases, resale price 
     maintenance increased the prices of products sold.
       (5) The 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court majority in 
     Leegin incorrectly interpreted the Sherman Act and improperly 
     disregarded 96 years of antitrust law precedent in 
     overturning the per se rule against resale price maintenance.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to correct the Supreme Court's mistaken interpretation 
     of the Sherman Act in the Leegin decision; and
       (2) to restore the rule that agreements between 
     manufacturers and retailers, distributors or wholesalers to 
     set the minimum price below which the manufacturer's product 
     or service cannot be sold violates the Sherman Act.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON VERTICAL PRICE FIXING.

       (a) Amendment to the Sherman Act.--Section 1 of the Sherman 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 1) is amended by adding after the first 
     sentence the following: ``Any contract, combination, 
     conspiracy or agreement setting a minimum price below which a 
     product or service cannot be sold by a retailer, wholesaler, 
     or distributor shall violate this Act.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL:
  S. 149. A bill to change the date for regularly scheduled Federal 
elections and establish polling place hours; to the Committee on Rules 
and Administration.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Weekend Voting 
Act. This legislation will change the day for Congressional and 
Presidential elections from the first Tuesday in November to the first 
weekend in November. This legislation is nearly identical to 
legislation that I first proposed in 1997.
  We have recently completed the most serious business of our 
democracy--a Presidential election in which millions and millions of 
citizens demonstrated an enormous amount of enthusiasm. We all want 
every eligible voter to participate and cast a vote. But recent 
experience has shown us that unneeded obstacles are placed preventing 
citizens from exercising their franchise. The debacle of defective 
ballots and voting methods in Florida in the 2000 election galvanized 
Congress into passing major election reform legislation. The Help 
America Vote Act, which was enacted into law in 2002, was an important 
step forward in establishing minimum standards for States in the 
administration of Federal elections and in providing funds to replace 
outdated voting systems and improve election administration. However, 
there is much that still needs to be done.
  With more and more voters seeking to cast their ballots on Election 
Day, we need to build on the movement which already exists to make it 
easier for Americans to cast their ballots by providing alternatives to 
voting on just one election day. Twenty-eight States, including my own 
State of Wisconsin, now permit any registered voter to vote by absentee 
ballot. These states

[[Page 178]]

constitute nearly half of the voting age citizens of the United States. 
Thirty-one States permit in-person early voting at election offices or 
at other satellite locations. The State of Oregon now conducts 
statewide elections completely by mail. These innovations are critical 
if we are to conduct fair elections for it has become unreasonable to 
expect that a Nation of 300 million people can line up at the same time 
and cast their ballots at the same time. If we continue to try to do 
so, we will encounter even more reports of broken machines and long 
lines in the rain and registration errors that create barriers to 
voting.
  That is why I have been a long-time advocate of moving our Federal 
election day from the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November 
to the first weekend in November. Holding our Federal elections on a 
weekend will create more opportunities for voters to cast their ballots 
and will help end the gridlock at the polling places which threaten to 
undermine our elections.
  Under this bill, polls would be open nationwide for a uniform period 
of time from 10 a.m. Saturday eastern time to 6 p.m. Sunday eastern 
time. Polls in all time zones would in the 48 contiguous states also 
open and close at this time. Election officials would be permitted to 
close polls during the overnight hours if they determine it would be 
inefficient to keep them open. Because the polls would be open on both 
Saturday and Sunday, they also would not interfere with religious 
observances.
  Keeping polls open the same hours across the continental United 
States, also addresses the challenge of keeping results on one side of 
the country, or even a state, from influencing voting in places where 
polls are still open. Moving elections to the weekend will expand the 
pool of buildings available for polling stations and people available 
to work at the polls, addressing the critical shortage of poll workers.
  Most important, weekend voting has the potential to increase voter 
turnout by giving all voters ample opportunity to get to the polls 
without creating a national holiday. There is already evidence that 
holding elections on a non-working day can increase voter turnout. In 
one survey of 44 democracies, 29 held elections on holidays or weekends 
and in all these cases voter turnout surpassed our country's voter 
participation rates.
  In 2001, the National Commission on Federal Election Reform 
recommended that we move our Federal election day to a national 
holiday, in particular Veterans Day. As expected, the proposal was not 
well received among veterans and I do not endorse such a move, but I 
share the Commission's goal of moving election day to a non-working 
day.
  Since the mid 19th century, election day has been on the first 
Tuesday of November. Ironically, this date was selected because it was 
convenient for voters. Tuesdays were traditionally court day, and land 
owning voters were often coming to town anyway.
  Just as the original selection of our national voting day was done 
for voter convenience, we must adapt to the changes in our society to 
make voting easier for the regular family. We have outgrown our Tuesday 
voting day tradition, a tradition better left behind to a bygone horse 
and buggy era. In today's America, 60 percent of all households have 
two working adults. Since most polls in the United States are open only 
12 hours on a Tuesday, generally from 7 a.m. to 7 or 8 p.m., voters 
often have only one or two hours to vote. As we've seen in recent 
elections, long lines in many polling places have kept some voters 
waiting much longer than one or two hours. If voters have children, and 
are dropping them off at day care, or if they have a long work commute, 
there is just not enough time in a workday to vote.
  With long lines and chaotic polling places becoming the unacceptable 
norm in many communities, we have an obligation to reform how our 
Nation votes. If we are to grant all Americans an equal opportunity to 
participate in the electoral process, and to elect our representatives 
in this great democracy, then we must be willing to reexamine all 
aspects of voting in America. Changing our election day to a weekend 
may seem like a change of great magnitude. Given the stakes--the 
integrity of future elections and full participation by as many 
Americans as possible--I hope my colleagues will recognize it as a 
commonsense proposal whose time has come.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 149

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Weekend Voting Act''.

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

       Section 25 of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 7) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``Sec. 25. The first Saturday and Sunday after the first 
     Friday in November, in every even numbered year, are 
     established as the days for the election, in each of the 
     States and Territories of the United States, of 
     Representatives and Delegates to the Congress commencing on 
     the 3d day of January thereafter.''.

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

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

     SEC. 4. POLLING PLACE HOURS.

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

     ``Sec. 1. Polling place hours

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

     ``SEC. 25. POLLING PLACE HOURS.

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

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

[[Page 179]]

     striking ``title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2'' 
     and inserting ``sections 1A and 2 of title 3''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY:
  S. 150. A bill to provide Federal assistance to States for rural law 
enforcement and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce the Rural 
Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 2009, a bill designed to help rural 
communities deal with growing crime problems that threaten to become 
significantly worse as a result of the devastating economic crisis we 
face.
  Congress and the new administration are beginning this session 
focused on passing a stimulus bill that will provide hundreds of 
billions of dollars to restart our economy, create jobs, and reverse 
the economic downturn inherited from the Bush administration. The Bush 
administration has already provided hundreds of billions of dollars to 
rescue the financial industry, and President Bush released billions 
more for assistance to the auto industry. Despite our legislative 
efforts to protect jobs and the economy as a whole, little has been 
done to help the millions of people in rural America, who have been hit 
as hard as anyone by the devastating effects of this recession.
  We must help rural communities stay safe during this economic 
downturn. Rural areas, which lack the crime prevention and law 
enforcement resources often available in larger communities, have a 
particular need for assistance to combat the worsening drug and crime 
problems that threaten the well-being of our small cities and towns 
and, most particularly, our young people. The Rural Law Enforcement 
Assistance Act of 2009 will provide just this kind of help.
  This bill will reauthorize a rural law enforcement assistance program 
first passed by Congress in the early 1990s. Like so many valuable 
programs that help local law enforcement and crime prevention, funding 
for this program was allowed to lapse under the Bush administration, 
despite its effectiveness in contributing to the record drop in crime 
in the late 1990s.
  The program would authorize $75 million a year over the next 5 years 
in new Byrne grant funds for State and local law enforcement, 
specifically for rural States and rural areas within larger States. 
This support would be used to hire police officers, purchase necessary 
police equipment, and to promote the use of task forces and 
collaborative efforts with Federal law enforcement. Just as important, 
these funds would also be used for prevention and treatment programs in 
rural communities; programs that are necessary to combat crime and are 
too often the first programs cut in an economic downturn. This bill 
also authorizes $2 million a year over 5 years for specialized training 
for rural law enforcement officers, since training is another area 
often cut in hard times. This bill will immediately help cash-strapped 
rural communities with the law enforcement assistance they desperately 
need.
  In December, the Senate Judiciary Committee traveled to St. Albans, 
Vermont, to hear from the people of that resilient community about the 
growing problem of drug-related crime in rural America, and about the 
innovative steps they are taking to combat that scourge. The 
introduction of this bill is a step forward to apply the lessons 
learned in that hearing and in previous crime hearings in Vermont and 
elsewhere.
  Crime is not just a big city issue. As we heard in St. Albans last 
month, and at a hearing in Rutland, Vermont, earlier last year, the 
drugs and violence so long seen largely in urban areas now plague even 
our most rural and remote communities, as well. As the world grows 
smaller with better transportation and faster communication, so do our 
shared problems. Rural communities also face the added burden of 
fighting these crime problems without the sophisticated task forces and 
specialized squads so common in big cities and metropolitan areas. In 
fact, too many rural communities, whether in Vermont or other rural 
States, don't have the money for a local police force at all, and rely 
almost exclusively on the state police or other state-wide agencies for 
even basic police services. In this environment, we must do more to 
provide assistance to those rural communities most at risk and hardest 
hit by the economic crisis.
  Unfortunately, for the last 8 years, throughout the country, State 
and local law enforcement agencies have been stretched thin as they 
shoulder both traditional crime-fighting duties and new homeland 
security demands. They have faced continuous cuts in Federal funding 
during the Bush years, and time and time again, our State and local law 
enforcement officers have been unable to fill vacancies and get the 
equipment they need.
  This trend is unacceptable, and that is why we must restore funding 
for rural law enforcement that proved so successful in 1990s, when 
crime fell to record lows in rural and urban areas alike.
  As a former prosecutor, I have always advocated vigorous enforcement 
and punishment of those who commit serious crimes. But I also know that 
punishment alone will not solve the problems of drugs and violence in 
our rural communities. Police chiefs from Vermont and across the 
country have told me that we cannot arrest our way out of this problem.
  Combating drug use and crime requires all the tools at our disposal, 
including enforcement, prevention, and treatment. The best way to 
prevent crime is often to provide young people with opportunities and 
constructive things to do, so they stay away from drugs and crime 
altogether. If young people do get involved with drugs, treatment in 
many cases can work to help them to turn their lives around. Good 
prevention and treatment programs have been shown again and again to 
reduce crime, but regrettably, the Bush administration has consistently 
sought to reduce funding for these important programs. It is time to 
move in a new direction.
  I will work with the new administration to advance legislation that 
will give State and local law enforcement the support it needs, that 
will help our cities and towns to implement the kinds of innovative and 
proven community-based solutions needed to reduce crime. The 
legislation I introduce today is a beginning, addressing the urgent and 
unmet need to support our rural law enforcement as they struggle to 
combat drugs and crime.
  It is a first step for us to help our small cities and towns weather 
the worsening conditions of these difficult times and begin to move in 
a better direction. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will 
join me in supporting this important legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 150

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Rural Law Enforcement 
     Assistance Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATIONS FOR RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

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

[[Page 180]]

       ``(3) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2011;
       ``(4) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2012; and
       ``(5) $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.''.

     SEC. 3. CLARIFICATION OF TITLES.

       (a) Omnibus Crime Control Act.--Part O of the title I of 
     the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3796bb et seq.) is amended by--
       (1) striking the part heading and inserting ``Rural Law 
     Enforcement''; and
       (2) striking the heading for section 1501 and inserting 
     ``RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE''.
       (b) Violent Crime Control Act.--Section 180103 of the 
     Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 
     U.S.C. 14082) is amended by striking the heading for the 
     section and inserting ``Rural Law Enforcement Training''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 151. A bill to protect Indian arts and crafts through the 
improvement of applicable criminal proceedings, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues 
Senator Thomas, Senator Kyl, and Senator Domenici in introducing a bill 
to amend the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. This legislation would improve 
Federal laws that protect the integrity and originality of Native 
American arts and crafts.
  The Indian Arts and Crafts Act prohibits the misrepresentation in 
marketing of Indian arts and crafts products, and makes it illegal to 
display or sell works in a manner that falsely suggests it's the 
product of an individual Indian or Indian Tribe. Unfortunately, the law 
is written so that only the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, 
acting on behalf of the Attorney General, can investigate and make 
arrests in cases of suspected Indian art counterfeiters. The bill we 
are introducing would amend the law to expand existing Federal 
investigative authority by authorizing other Federal investigative 
bodies, such as the BIA Office of Law Enforcement, in addition to the 
FBI, to investigate cases of misrepresentation of Indian arts and 
crafts. This bill is similar to provisions included in S. 1255, which 
passed the Senate last Congress but wasn't acted on by the House, and 
the Native American Omnibus Technical Corrections Act of 2007, S. 2087.
  A major source of tribal and individual Indian income is derived from 
the sale of handmade Indian arts and crafts. Yet, millions of dollars 
are diverted each year from these original artists and Indian tribes by 
those who reproduce and sell counterfeit Indian goods. Few, if any, 
criminal prosecutions have been brought in Federal court for such 
violations. It is understandable that enforcing the criminal law under 
the Indian Arts and Crafts Act is often stalled by the other 
responsibilities of the FBI including investigating terrorism activity 
and violent crimes in Indian country. Therefore, expanding the 
investigative authority to include other Federal agencies is intended 
to promote the active investigation of alleged misconduct. It is my 
hope that this much needed change will deter those who choose to 
violate the law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 152. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the 
Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land 
adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of 
Arizona; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl 
in reintroducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land 
management study for lands adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National 
Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of 
management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure 
adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. A 
similar bill was introduced last Congress and received a hearing in the 
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on 
National Parks. The bill being introduced today reflects suggested 
changes of that Subcommittee and includes language that met their 
approval. I am grateful for the input of the members of the 
Subcommittee and their staff.
  For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon 
National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the 
monument would be best protected from future development under 
management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The 
Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed 
resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is 
best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by 
having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study 
would help to resolve the question of future management and whether 
expanding the monument's boundaries could compliment current public and 
multiple-use needs.
  The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management 
options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources 
of the study area. I fully expect that as this measure continues 
through the legislative process, Congress will ensure that funding 
offsets are provided to it and every other spending measure as we work 
to restore fiscal discipline to Washington in a bi-partisan manner.
  This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the 
management options for one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and 
protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful 
monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):
  S. 153. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to designate 
the Arizona National Scenic Trail; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator 
Kyl in introducing the Arizona Trail Feasibility National Scenic Trail 
Act. This bill would designate the Arizona Trail as a National Scenic 
Trail.
  The Arizona Trail is a beautifully diverse stretch of public lands, 
mountains, canyons, deserts, forests, historic sites, and communities. 
The Trail is approximately 807 miles long and begins at the Coronado 
National Memorial on the U.S.-Mexico border and ends in the Bureau of 
Land Management's Arizona Strip District on the Utah border near the 
Grand Canyon. In between these two points, the Trail winds through some 
of the most rugged, spectacular scenery in the Western United States. 
The corridor for the Arizona Trail encompasses the wide range of 
ecological diversity in the state, and incorporates a host of existing 
trails into one continuous trail. In fact, the Trail route is so 
topographically diverse that a person can hike from the Sonoran Desert 
to Alpine forests in one day.
  For over a decade, more than 16 Federal, State, and local agencies, 
as well as community and business organizations, have partnered to 
create, develop, and manage the Arizona Trail. Through their combined 
efforts, these agencies and the members of the Arizona Trail 
Association have completed over 90 percent of the longest contiguous 
land-based trail in the State of Arizona. Designating the Arizona Trail 
as a National Scenic Trail would help streamline the management of the 
high-use trail to ensure that this pristine stretch of diverse land is 
preserved for future generations to enjoy.
  Since 1968, when the National Trails System Act was established, 
Congress has designated over 20 national trails. Before a trail 
receives a national designation, a federal study is typically required 
to assess the feasibility of establishing a trail route. The Arizona 
Trail doesn't require a feasibility study because it's virtually 
complete with less than 60 miles left to build and sign. All but 1-
percent of the trail resides on public land, and the unfinished 
segments don't involve private property. The trail meets the criteria 
to be labeled a National Scenic Trail and already appears on all 
Arizona state maps. Therefore, the Congress has reason to forego an 
unnecessary and costly feasibility study and proceed

[[Page 181]]

straight to National Scenic Trail designation.
  The Arizona Trail is known throughout the State as boon to outdoor 
enthusiasts. The Arizona State Parks recently released data showing 
that two-thirds of Arizonans consider themselves trail users. Millions 
of visitors also use Arizona's trails each year. In one of the fastest-
growing states in the United States, the designation of the Arizona 
Trail as a National Scenic Trail would ensure the preservation of a 
corridor of open space for hikers, mountain bicyclists, cross country 
skiers, snowshoers, eco-tourists, equestrians, and joggers.
  I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Bunning):
  S. 155. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to suspend 
the taxation of unemployment compensation for 2 years; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill I 
offered last December that will provide much-needed relief to 
struggling families across America. The Unemployment Benefit Tax 
Suspension Act of 2009 is a critical piece of legislation, which should 
be considered as part of any stimulus package, that would suspend the 
collection of Federal income tax on unemployment benefits for 2008 and 
2009. This bill would ensure that as individuals sit down in the next 
couple months to complete their 2008 tax bills, they will not have to 
worry about paying taxes on the unemployment benefits they received 
last year or can get refunds of taxes withheld. It also means that the 
unemployed would not be concerned with taxes on benefits paid this 
year. I thank Senators Lincoln and Bunning for joining me to introduce 
this legislation.
  In light of the calamitous labor market, Congress must act to ensure 
that workers who lose their jobs do not also lose their livelihoods. In 
December, the Labor Department released sobering statistics that 
demonstrated the gravity of the situation we face. In November, the 
economy shed 533,000 jobs, the largest monthly job loss since December 
1974. Our unemployment rate now stands at a perilous 6.7 percent, a 15-
year high. We have lost 1.9 million jobs since the beginning of our 
present recession in December 2007--including two-thirds of those jobs 
in the last 3 months alone--and the number of unemployed stands at a 
whopping 10.3 million.
  Suspending the Federal income tax on unemployment benefits is a 
simple way to assist our Nation's unemployed workers and families. In 
fact, the CBO has estimated that in 2005, of the 8.1 million recipients 
of unemployment compensation benefits, 7.5 million had incomes of under 
$100,000. As such, most of the benefits of suspending this tax are 
likely to go to lower- and middle-income families, those struggling 
harder than ever just to make ends meet.
  During these challenging times, taxes on unemployment compensation 
represents a burden that unemployed members of our society simply 
cannot afford. Working families are already suffering, with the high 
cost of groceries, an unstable energy market, and the outrageous 
pricetag for health care. My bill offers a means to help stimulate the 
economy by making unemployed workers' benefits stretch farther. While 
it is certainly not a solution to the problem, it is a step in the 
right direction.
  President-elect Obama has voiced his support for this general idea, 
calling it ``a way of giving more relief to families,'' and I believe 
that is the ultimate goal we must pursue in these trying times. I look 
forward to seeing this bill is passed in a timely manner, so that the 
impact can be immediate.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 155

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Unemployment Benefit Tax 
     Suspension Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 2. SUSPENSION OF TAX ON UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 85 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 (relating to unemployment compensation) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Temporary Suspension.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007, and 
     before January 1, 2010.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 156. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
enhanced small business expensing and to provide for a 5-year net 
operating loss carryback for losses incurred in 2008 or 2009; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms, SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
provide critical tax incentives to our Nation's small businesses, which 
will help them to make vital investments in new plant and equipment and 
weather the recession that is crippling our Nation's economy. The Small 
Business Stimulus Act of 2009 is just three pages, but by extending 
enhanced small business expensing and establishing a 5-year carryback 
for net operating losses, it would pack a powerful punch and assist 
America's 26 million small firms that represent over 99.7 of all 
employers. I am pleased that press reports indicate that President-
elect Obama will include these proposals in his stimulus initiative, 
and I hope that Congress will feature them in any legislation we pass 
in the coming weeks. I thank Senator Kerry for joining me to introduce 
this legislation.
  I have long championed so-called enhanced Section 179 expensing, and 
I was gratified that Congress, as part of the Economic Stimulus Act of 
2008, allowed small businesses in Maine and across the nation to 
expense up to $250,000 of their investments, including the purchase of 
essential new equipment. Unfortunately, the incentive in that bill was 
written to last just one year, and so, in 2009, absent additional 
action, small firms will be able to expense just $133,000 of new 
investment. Instead of being able to write off more of their equipment 
purchases immediately, firms will have to recover their costs over 5, 
7, or more years.
  At a time in which we find ourselves in a recession and our nation's 
small businesses are having trouble finding capital to make job-
creating new investments, we simply cannot allow that to occur. 
Accordingly, my bill would allow small businesses to continue expensing 
up to $250,000 of new investment in both 2009 and 2010. The purchase of 
new equipment will undoubtedly contribute to continued productivity 
growth in the business community, which economic experts have 
repeatedly stressed is essential to the long-term vitality of our 
economy.
  Second, my bill recognizes that many businesses that were once 
profitable are experiencing significant losses as a result of current 
economic conditions. As a result, many are curtailing operations, and 
over 2 million Americans lost their jobs in 2008. It is for this reason 
that I am introducing a proposal to extend the net operating loss 
carryback period from 2 to 5 years. In this way, businesses reporting 
losses in 2008 and 2009 may offset those losses against profits from as 
many as 5 years in the past and claim an immediate tax refund. They can 
use that money to help sustain operations and retain employees while 
the economy recovers. This proposal should be particularly beneficial 
to small businesses, which are responsible for creating 75 percent of 
net new jobs. Finally, I would note that although I proposed this very 
change in January 2008 and it cleared the Finance Committee as part of 
last year's stimulus legislation, it was subsequently dropped in 
negotiations with the House of Representatives. I hope that this worthy 
proposal does not suffer the same fate this year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page 182]]



                                 S. 156

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Stimulus Act 
     of 2009''.

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

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

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

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

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

       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to net operating 
     losses arising in taxable years ending after December 31, 
     2007.
       (2) Alternative tax net operating loss deduction.--The 
     amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable 
     years ending after 1997.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 157. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the temporary waiver of required minimum distribution rules for certain 
retirement plans and accounts; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to 
offer expanded relief to retirees who are forced to take so-called 
required minimum distributions from their retirement accounts. After a 
year in which the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell a staggering 34 
percent, Congress rightly suspended required minimum distribution rules 
for 2009 as part of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 
2008. Unfortunately, Congress did not act to suspend the rules for 2008 
or 2010 as I had previously proposed. Consequently, we now find 
ourselves in a situation in which 1 year of relief is insufficient to 
enable retirees to recoup their losses, and I am, therefore, 
introducing the Retirement Account Distribution Improvement Act of 2009 
to allow amounts required to have been distributed in 2008 to be re-
contributed and to waive the rules for 2010. I would like to thank 
Senator Lincoln for cosponsoring this legislation.
  Under current law, individuals who have reached age 70.5 generally 
must begin to withdraw funds from their IRAs or defined contribution 
retirement plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457, and TSP plans. The 
withdrawals must begin by April 1 of the year after which an individual 
attains age 70.5. Failure to take a required minimum distribution may 
result in a 50 percent excise tax on the difference between what must 
be withdrawn and the amount actually distributed.
  In times that equities markets are rising and retirement account 
balances are growing, required minimum distribution rules are sensible. 
Indeed, they ensure the Government gains revenue after years of tax-
deferred growth. Unfortunately, we are now witnessing unprecedented 
losses in equities markets that have caused many individuals to suffer 
steep losses in their retirement account balances. Notably, the 
American Association of Retired Persons has said that retirement 
accounts have lost as much as $2.3 trillion between September 30, 2007, 
and October 16, 2008. Forcing individuals to prematurely liquidate 
accounts and pay income taxes on the proceeds, as is required under 
current law, instead of allowing them to wait until the market recovers 
and continue to defer tax, simply adds insult to injury. Moreover, 
mandating withdrawals may cause stock prices to fall, hurting other 
investors.
  It is for these reasons that I am today introducing legislation to 
allow individuals who were forced to withdraw funds in 2008 to re-
contribute that money into their accounts by July 1, 2009. Any amounts 
erroneously distributed in early 2009 could also be re-contributed by 
July 1, 2009. Finally, my bill would also waive minimum required 
distributions for 2010.
  Although Congress took a solid first step by suspending minimum 
required distributions for 2009, we must do more. With many predicting 
a multi-year recession, Congress must adopt a longer-term approach to 
helping individuals protect their retirement assets and weather the 
current economic storm. Individuals may require several years to recoup 
losses they have sustained, and by enabling them to keep assets in 
their retirement accounts until 2011, this bill offers them that 
opportunity. At that point, Congress can reevaluate whether the waiver 
of current-law rules should be further extended.
  I urge all Senators to consider the benefits this legislation will 
provide to millions of retirees all across the United States, and I 
look forward to working with my colleagues to enact it in a timely 
manner.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 157

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Retirement Account 
     Distribution Improvement Act of 2009''.

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

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (H) of section 401(a)(9) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by the Worker, 
     Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 2008, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``for calendar year 2009'' in clause (i) 
     and inserting ``for calendar years 2008, 2009 or 2010'',
       (2) by striking ``2009'' in clause (ii)(I) and inserting 
     ``2010'', and
       (3) by striking ``to calendar year 2009'' in clause 
     (ii)(II) and inserting ``to calendar years 2008, 2009, or 
     2010''.
       (b) Eligible Rollover Distributions.--The last sentence of 
     section 402(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     added by the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 
     2008, is amended by striking ``2009'' and inserting ``2008, 
     2009, or 2010''.
       (c) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
       (2) Recontributions of distributions in 2008 or early 
     2009.--
       (A) In general.--If a person receives 1 or more eligible 
     distributions, the person may, on or before July 1, 2009, 
     make one or more contributions (in an aggregate amount not 
     exceeding all eligible distributions) to an eligible 
     retirement plan and to which a rollover contribution of such 
     distribution could be made under section 402(c), 403(a)(4), 
     403(b)(8), 408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as the case may be. For purposes of the 
     preceding sentence, rules similar to the rules of clauses 
     (ii) and (iii) of section 402(c)(11)(A) of such Code shall 
     apply in the case of a beneficiary who is not the surviving 
     spouse of the employee or of the owner of the individual 
     retirement plan.
       (B) Eligible distribution.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph--
       (i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the 
     term ``eligible distribution'' means an applicable 
     distribution to a person from an individual account or 
     annuity--

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

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

       (I) for purposes of applying subparagraph (A) to 
     distributions made in 2008, the amount

[[Page 183]]

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

       (iii) Applicable distribution.--

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

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

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

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

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

     In the case of a governmental plan, subclause (II) shall be 
     applied by substituting ``2012'' for ``2011''.
       (ii) Conditions.--This paragraph shall not apply to any 
     amendment unless during the period beginning on January 1, 
     2009, and ending on December 31, 2010 (or, if earlier, the 
     date the plan or contract amendment is adopted), the plan or 
     contract is operated as if such plan or contract amendment 
     were in effect.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Brown, and Mrs. 
        Lincoln:)
  S. 158. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand 
the availability of industrial development bonds to facilities 
manufacturing intangible property; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation 
that would provide State and local development finance authorities with 
greater flexibility in promoting economic growth that meets the 
changing realities of an ever more global economy. Specifically, my 
bill would expand the definition of ``manufacturing'' as it pertains to 
the small-issue Industrial Development Bond, IDB, program to include 
the creation of ``intangible'' property. I am pleased to be joined by 
Senators Kerry, Brown, and Lincoln in reintroducing this critical 
legislation to promote economic development, and I strongly believe it 
would be a critical additional to any stimulus legislation.
  Our Nation's capacity to innovate is a key reason why our economy 
remains the envy of the world, even during these difficult economic 
times. Knowledge-based businesses have been at the forefront of this 
innovation that has bolstered the economy over the long-term. For 
example, science parks have helped lead the technological revolution 
and have created more than 300,000 high-paying science and technology 
jobs, along with another 450,000 indirect jobs for a total of 750,000 
jobs in North America.
  It is clear that the promotion of knowledge-based industries can be a 
key economic tool for States and localities. This is especially true 
for States that have seen a loss in traditional manufacturing. In my 
home State of Maine, we lost 28 percent of our total manufacturing 
employment over the last decade. I believe that it is critical that we 
provide States and localities with a wider range of options in 
promoting economic development, particularly as our economy lost over 2 
million jobs in 2008. My legislation will do just that by expanding the 
availability of small-issue IDBs to new economy industries, such as 
software and biotechnology, that have proven their ability to provide 
high-paying jobs.
  These IDBs allow State and local development finance authorities, 
like the Finance Authority of Maine, to issue tax-exempt bonds for the 
purpose of raising capital to provide low-cost financing of 
manufacturing facilities. These bonds, therefore, provide local 
authorities with an invaluable tool to attract new employers and assist 
existing ones to grow. The result is a win-win situation for local 
communities providing them with much needed jobs. Consequently, it only 
makes sense to ensure that these finance authorities have maximum 
flexibility in options to grow jobs.
  In addition, my bill provides some technical clarity to distinguish 
between the phrases ``functionally related and subordinate facilities'' 
and ``directly related and ancillary facilities.'' Until 1988, there 
was little confusion based on Treasury regulations going back to 1972 
that made it clear that ``functionally related and subordinate 
facilities'' were clearly eligible for financing through private 
activity tax-exempt bonds. But, Congress enacted the Technical and 
Miscellaneous Revenue Bond Act of 1988 that imposed a limitation that 
not more than 25 percent of tax-exempt bond financing could be used on 
``directly related and ancillary facilities.'' While these two phrases 
appear to be very similar, they are indeed distinguishable from each 
other. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service has blurred this 
distinction between the phrases which has had an adverse impact on the 
way facilities are able to utilize tax-exempt bond financing. My 
legislation would make it clear that ``functionally related and 
subordinate facilities'' are not susceptible to the 25 percent 
limitation.
  We must continue to encourage all avenues of economic development if 
America is to compete in a changing and increasingly global economy, 
and my legislation is one small step in furtherance of that goal. I 
urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and to include it 
in stimulus legislation we will be considering in the coming weeks.
   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 158

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

[[Page 184]]



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

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

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

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

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

  Congress has repeatedly used this authority to treat the District of 
Columbia as a State for various public purposes. For example, as long 
ago as 1940, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was revised to broaden diversity 
jurisdiction to include citizens of the District, even though the 
Constitution specifically provides that national courts may hear cases 
``between citizens of different States.''
  In other words, in that act, Congress said no, for purposes of 
diversity of jurisdiction access to the courts, even though the 
Constitution says that courts may hear cases between citizens of 
different States. It would be incomprehensible that citizens of the 
District of Columbia, because they happen to live in the Nation's 
Capital, could not gain access to the Federal courts.
  When challenged, this revision to the Judiciary Act was upheld as 
constitutional by the Federal courts themselves. Furthermore, the 
courts have found that Congress has the authority to impose national 
taxes on the District, to provide a jury trial to residents of the 
District, and to include the District in interstate commerce 
regulations.
  These are rights and responsibilities that our Constitution grants to 
States. Yet the District Clause has allowed Congress to apply those 
rights and responsibilities to the District of Columbia because not to 
do so would make residents of the District, or the District itself, 
second class in their citizenship.
  Treating the District as a State for purposes of voting 
representation in Congress should be no different. The elections of 
2008 saw a historic number of citizens carrying out their civic duty by 
voting for their representatives in Congress. Unfortunately, for over 
200 years, DC residents have been denied that most basic right.
  According to a 2005 KRC Research poll, 82 percent of Americans, when 
told that residents of the District do not have a voting representative 
in Congress, say it is time to give that voting representation to the 
citizens of our Nation's Capital.
  This has very practical and just consequences. People of the District 
have been the target directly of terrorist attacks, but they have no 
vote on how

[[Page 185]]

the Federal Government provides for their homeland security. Men and 
women citizens of the District have fought bravely in our wars, in 
defense of our security and our freedom over the years, many giving 
their lives in defense of our country. Yet citizens of the District 
have no voting representation in Congress on the serious questions of 
war and peace, veterans' benefits, and the like. Of course, the 
citizens of the District of Columbia, per capita, pay Federal income 
taxes at the second highest rate in the Nation. Yet they have 
absolutely no voice, no voting representation, in setting tax rates or 
in determining how the revenues raised by those taxes will be spent.
  This is plain wrong. The Supreme Court has said ``that no right is 
more precious in a free country than that of having a vote in the 
election of those who make the laws, under which, as good citizens, we 
must live.''
  We can no longer deny our fellow American citizens who happen to live 
in the District of Columbia this precious right. With the United States 
engaged now in two wars, a global war also against terrorists who 
attacked us on 9/11/2001, with our country facing the most significant 
economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is past time to grant 
the vote to those citizens living in our Nation's Capital so their vote 
can be rightfully heard as we debate these great and complex issues of 
our time.
  This matter has fallen, according to our rules, under the 
jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs, which I am privileged to chair. I hope we will be 
able to take it up quickly. It is my intention to consider this 
legislation at the first markup of our committee in the session, and 
then to bring it to the floor as quickly as possible with a high sense 
of optimism that on this occasion, if there is another filibuster that 
we will have, with the help of the new Members of the Senate, more than 
60 votes necessary to close it off, and at least have a vote on this 
question of fundamental rights for 600,000 of our fellow Americans.
  I want to submit not only an original copy of the bill to the clerk, 
but also for the Record a statement from Senator Hatch, which I ask 
unanimous consent to appear as if read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 160

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia House 
     Voting Rights Act of 2009''.

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; TIMING OF ELECTIONS.

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

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Repeal of Office of District of Columbia Delegate.--
       (1) Repeal of office.--
       (A) In general.--Sections 202 and 204 of the District of 
     Columbia Delegate Act (Public Law 91-405; sections 1-401 and 
     1-402, D.C. Official Code) are repealed, and the provisions 
     of law amended or repealed by such sections are restored or 
     revived as if such sections had not been enacted.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from 
     the District of Columbia takes office.
       (2) Conforming amendments to district of columbia elections 
     code of 1955.--The District of Columbia Elections Code of 
     1955 is amended as follows:
       (A) In section 1 (sec. 1-1001.01, D.C. Official Code), by 
     striking ``the Delegate to the House of Representatives,'' 
     and inserting ``the Representative in Congress,''.
       (B) In section 2 (sec. 1-1001.02, D.C. Official Code)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (6); and
       (ii) in paragraph (13), by striking ``the Delegate to 
     Congress for the District of Columbia,'' and inserting ``the 
     Representative in Congress,''.
       (C) In section 8 (sec. 1-1001.08, D.C. Official Code)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``Delegate'' and inserting 
     ``Representative''; and
       (ii) by striking ``Delegate,'' each place it appears in 
     subsections (h)(1)(A), (i)(1), and (j)(1) and inserting 
     ``Representative in Congress,''.
       (D) In section 10 (sec. 1-1001.10, D.C. Official Code)--
       (i) in subsection (a)(3)(A)--

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

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

[[Page 186]]

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

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

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

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

     SEC. 6. NONSEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS AND NONAPPLICABILITY.

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

     SEC. 7. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

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

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I did in the last Congress, I am 
cosponsoring the legislation introduced today by the Senator from 
Connecticut to provide a House seat for the District of Columbia and an 
additional House seat for Utah.
  Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of 
self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage 
would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the 
Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that no right is more precious 
in a free country than having a voice in the election of those who 
govern us. I continue to believe what I stated more than 30 years ago 
here on the Senate floor, that Americans living in the District should 
enjoy all the privileges of citizenship, including voting rights.
  The bill introduced today would treat the District of Columbia as a 
congressional district to provide for full representation in the House. 
The bill states, however, that the District shall not be treated as a 
State for representation in this body.
  No matter how worthwhile or even compelling an objective might be, 
however, we cannot legislatively pursue it without authority grounded 
in the Constitution. I would note that the Constitution explicitly 
gives Congress legislative authority over the District ``in all cases 
whatsoever.'' This authority is unparalleled in scope and has been 
called sweeping, plenary, and extraordinary by the courts. It surpasses 
both the authority a State legislature has over its own State and the 
authority Congress has over legislation affecting the States.
  Some have argued that despite the centrality of representation and 
suffrage, and notwithstanding our unparalleled and plenary authority 
over the District, that Congress cannot provide a House seat for the 
District by legislation. They base their argument on a single word. 
Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution provides that the House of 
Representatives shall be composed of members chosen by the people of 
the several States. Because the District is not a State, the argument 
goes, it cannot have a House seat without a constitutional amendment,
  I studied this issue extensively and published my analysis and 
conclusions in the Harvard Journal on Legislation for everyone to 
consider. I ask unanimous consent that this article be made part of the 
Record following my remarks. Let me here just mention a few 
considerations that I found persuasive.
  First, as I have already mentioned, the default position of our 
system of government is representation and suffrage. That principle is 
so fundamental that, in this case, I believe there must be actual 
evidence that America's founders intended to deny it to District 
residents, No such evidence exists.
  Second, establishing and maintaining the District as a separate 
political jurisdiction does not require disenfranchising its residents. 
The founders wanted the capital to be free from State control and I 
support keeping it that way. Giving the District a House seat changes 
neither that status nor Congress' legislative authority over the 
District.
  Third, America's founders not only did not intend to disenfranchise 
District residents, they demonstrated the opposite intention by their 
own legislative actions. In 1790, Congress provided by legislation for 
Americans living in the land ceded for the District to vote

[[Page 187]]

in congressional elections. No one even suggested that this legislation 
was unconstitutional because that land was not part of a State. If 
Congress could do it then, Congress can do it today.
  Fourth, courts have held for more than two centuries that 
constitutional provisions framed in terms of States can be applied to 
the District or that Congress can legislatively accomplish for the 
District what the Constitution accomplishes for States. Congress, for 
example, has authority to regulate commerce among the several States. 
The Supreme Court held in 1889 that this applies to the District. Do 
opponents of giving the District a House seat believe Congress cannot 
regulate commerce involving the District?
  The original Constitution provided that direct taxes shall be 
apportioned among the several States. The Supreme Court held in 1820 
that Congress' legislative authority over the District allows taxation 
of the District. Do opponents of giving the District a House seat 
believe that the District is suitable for taxation but not for 
representation?
  The Constitution provides that federal courts may review lawsuits 
between citizens of different States. The Supreme Court held in 1805 
that Congress can legislatively extend this to the District even though 
the Constitution does not.
  The list goes on involving provisions of the Constitution, statutes, 
and even treaties. Over and over, courts have ruled either that 
provisions framed in terms of States can be directly applied to the 
District or that Congress can legislatively do so. Perhaps opponents of 
giving the District a House seat believe that all of these decisions 
over more than two centuries were wrong, that the word States begins 
and ends the discussion in every case. They cannot say so in the 
present case without confronting those precedents.
  These and other considerations which I discussed in the article I 
mentioned have led me to conclude that the Constitution allows Congress 
legislatively to provide a House seat for the District. I do want to 
repeat my continuing opposition to District representation in the 
Senate. The District's status as a non-State jurisdiction is not 
relevant to representation in the House, which was designed to 
represent people, but it is relevant to representation in the Senate, 
which was designed to represent states. I would once again emphasize 
that the bill introduced today explicitly disclaims Senate 
representation for the District.
  In December 2006, I signed a letter to the majority and minority 
leaders expressing the same position I had taken three decades earlier. 
It stated that while there are many differences between Utah and the 
District, to be sure, they share the right to be represented in our 
country's legislature. I take the same position today, believing that 
Congress may and should pass the bill introduced today to provide for 
that representation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the District of 
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 to end the unfair treatment of 
District of Columbia residents and give them voting representation in 
the House of Representatives. For over 200 years, the residents of the 
District of Columbia have been denied a voting Member representing 
their views in Congress. That is wrong, and I hope the Senate will 
consider this important issue early this year to remedy the 
disenfranchisement that residents of our Nation's capital have endured.
  When the Senate considered this legislation last Congress the 
Republican minority chose to filibuster the bill. While a majority 
favored it, we fell short of the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster 
and pass it. Earlier that year, however, the House of Representatives 
worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a version of a voting rights bill 
for the District of Columbia led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes 
Norton. As a young lawyer, she worked for civil rights and voting 
rights around the country. It is a cruel irony that upon her return to 
the District of Columbia, and her election to the House of 
Representatives, she does not yet have the right to vote on behalf of 
the people of the District of Columbia who elected her. She is a strong 
voice in Congress, but the citizens living in the Nation's capital 
deserve a vote, as well.
  The bill introduced today would give the District of Columbia 
delegate a vote in the House. It would give Utah a fourth seat in the 
House as well. Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on 
a similar measure and we heard compelling testimony from constitutional 
experts. They testified that this legislation is constitutional, and 
highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power to confer statehood 
on the District certainly contains the lesser one, the power to grant 
District residents voting rights in the House of Representatives. 
Congress has repeatedly treated the District of Columbia as a ``State'' 
for various purposes. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton testified 
that although ``the District is not a State,'' the ``Congress has not 
had the slightest difficulty in treating the District as a State, with 
its laws, its treaties, and for constitutional purposes.'' Examples of 
these actions include a revision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that 
broadened Article III diversity jurisdiction to include citizens of the 
District even though the Constitution only provides that Federal courts 
may hear cases ``between citizens of different States.'' Congress has 
also treated the District as a ``State'' for purposes of congressional 
power to regulate commerce ``among the several States.'' The Sixteenth 
Amendment grants Congress the power to directly tax incomes ``without 
apportionment among the several States,'' but has been interpreted also 
to apply to residents of the District. In fact, the District of 
Columbia pays the second highest Federal taxes per capita without any 
say in how those dollars are spent.
  I believe that this legislation is within Congress's powers as 
provided in the Constitution. I agree with Congressman John Lewis, 
Congresswoman Norton and numerous other civil rights leaders and 
constitutional scholars that we should extend the basic right of voting 
representation to the hundreds of thousands of Americans residing in 
the District of Columbia. These Americans pay Federal taxes, defend our 
country in the military and serve on Federal juries.
  This is an historic measure that holds great significance within the 
civil rights community and for the residents of the District of 
Columbia. I urge Senators to do what is right and to support this bill 
when it comes to the floor for full Senate consideration.
  Over 50 years ago, the Senate overrode filibusters to pass the Civil 
Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 
Congressman Lewis, a courageous leader during those transformational 
struggles decades ago, gave moving testimony before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee last Congress in which he reminded us that ``we in 
Congress must do all we can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the 
mission of equal justice.'' The Senate should continue to fight for the 
fundamental rights of all Americans and stand united in serving this 
noble purpose. No person's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed 
or denied in the United States of America. Let us move forward together 
and provide full voting rights for the citizens in our Nation's 
capital.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. McCain, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. 
        Graham, and Mr. Coburn.)
  S. 162. A bill to provide greater accountability of taxpayers' 
dollars by curtailing congressional earmarking, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior 
Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, the junior Senator from Missouri, 
Mrs. McCaskill, the junior Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn, and the 
senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, in introducing the 
Fiscal Discipline, Earmark Reform, and Accountability Act of 2009. 
Senator McCain has been one of the preeminent champions of earmark 
reform, and I have been pleased to work with him in fighting this abuse 
over the last two decades. Senators McCaskill and Coburn,

[[Page 188]]

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

                                 S. 162

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Fiscal Discipline, Earmark 
     Reform, and Accountability Act''.

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

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

[[Page 189]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 190]]

as cancer destroys tissue and vital organs, the corruption associated 
with the process of earmarking is destroying what is vital to our 
strength as a nation--that is the faith and trust of the American 
people in their elected representatives and in the institutions of 
their government.
  Not long ago, in the House of Representatives, when another member 
questioned the necessity of one of his earmarked projects, a 
Congressman raged at the idea of someone challenging what he described 
as ``my money, my money.'' Therein lies the problem, Mr. President. Too 
many Members of Congress view taxpayers, funds as their own. They feel 
free to spend it as they see fit, with no oversight and, often, no 
shame. Look at some of the things we've funded over the years: $225,000 
for an Historic Wagon Museum in Utah, $1 million for a DNA study of 
bears in Montana, $200,000 for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Ohio, 
$220,000 for blueberry research at the University of Maine, $3 million 
for an animal waste management research facility in Kentucky, $170,000 
for blackbird management in Kansas, $196,000 for geese control in New 
York, $50,000 for feral hog control in Missouri, $90,000 for the 
National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame in Fort Worth, Texas, $200,000 
for an American White Pelican survey, $6 million for sugarcane growers 
in Hawaii, $13 million for a ewe lamb retention program, $500,000 to 
study flight attendant fatigue, $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in 
Pennsylvania and New York, $3 million for the production of a 
documentary about Alaska, $1 million for a waterless urinal initiative, 
$500,000 for a Teapot museum in North Carolina, $1.1 million to 
research the use of Alaskan salmon in baby food, $25 million for a fish 
hatchery in Montana, $37 million over four years to the Alaska 
Fisheries Marketing Board to ``promote and develop fishery products and 
research pertaining to American fisheries.'' So how exactly does this 
Board spend the money Congress so generously earmarks every year? Well, 
they spent $500,000 of it to paint a giant salmon on the side of an 
Alaska Airlines 747--and nicknamed it the ``Salmon Forty Salmon.''
  Unfortunately, I could go on and on with examples of wasteful 
earmarks that have been approved by Congress. And we wonder why our 
approval rating stands at 20 percent.
  The corruption which stems from the practice of earmarking has 
resulted in current and former Members of both the House and Senate 
either under investigation, under indictment, or in prison. Let's be 
clear--it wasn't inadequate lobbyist disclosure requirements which led 
Duke Cunningham to violate his oath of office and take $2.5 million in 
bribes in exchange for doling out $70-$80 million of the taxpayer's 
funds to a defense contractor. It was his ability to freely earmark 
taxpayer funds without question.
  We cannot allow this to continue. Now is the time to put a stop to 
this corrupt practice. The bill we are introducing today seeks to 
reform the current system by empowering all Members with a tool to rid 
appropriations bills of unauthorized funds, pork barrel projects, and 
legislative policy riders and to provide greater public disclosure of 
the legislative process.
  We, as Members, owe it to the American people to conduct ourselves in 
a way that reinforces, rather than diminishes, the public's faith and 
confidence in Congress. An informed citizenry is essential to a 
thriving democracy. A democratic government operates best in the 
disinfecting light of the public eye. By seriously addressing the 
corrupting influence of earmarks, we will allow Members to legislate 
with the imperative that our Government must be free from corrupting 
influences, both real and perceived. We must act now to ensure that the 
erosion we see today in the public's confidence in Congress does not 
become a collapse of confidence. We can, and we must, end the practice 
of earmarking.
  Again, I thank my friend and colleague from Wisconsin for his strong 
leadership on this issue, and I encourage the Senate act quickly to 
approve this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S.J. Res. 3. A joint resolution ensuring that the compensation and 
other emoluments attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior 
are those which were in effect on January 1, 2005; considered and 
passed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
joint resolution be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the joint resolution was 
ordered to be placed in the Record, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 3

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. COMPENSATION AND OTHER EMOLUMENTS ATTACHED TO THE 
                   OFFICE OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

       (a) In General.--The compensation and other emoluments 
     attached to the office of Secretary of the Interior shall be 
     those in effect January 1, 2005, notwithstanding any increase 
     in such compensation or emoluments after that date under any 
     provision of law, or provision which has the force and effect 
     of law, that is enacted or becomes effective during the 
     period beginning at noon of January 3, 2005, and ending at 
     noon of January 3, 2011.
       (b) Civil Action and Appeal.--
       (1) Jurisdiction.--Any person aggrieved by an action of the 
     Secretary of the Interior may bring a civil action in the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia to 
     contest the constitutionality of the appointment and 
     continuance in office of the Secretary of the Interior on the 
     ground that such appointment and continuance in office is in 
     violation of article I, section 6, clause 2, of the 
     Constitution. The United States District Court for the 
     District of Columbia shall have exclusive jurisdiction over 
     such a civil action, without regard to the sum or value of 
     the matter in controversy.
       (2) Three judge panel.--Any claim challenging the 
     constitutionality of the appointment and continuance in 
     office of the Secretary of the Interior on the ground that 
     such appointment and continuance in office is in violation of 
     article I, section 6, clause 2, of the Constitution, in an 
     action brought under paragraph (1) shall be heard and 
     determined by a panel of three judges in accordance with 
     section 2284 of title 28, United States Code. It shall be the 
     duty of the district court to advance on the docket and to 
     expedite the disposition of any matter brought under this 
     subsection.
       (3) Appeal.--
       (A) Direct appeal to supreme court.--An appeal may be taken 
     directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from any 
     interlocutory or final judgment, decree, or order upon the 
     validity of the appointment and continuance in office of the 
     Secretary of the Interior under article I, section 6, clause 
     2, of the Constitution, entered in any action brought under 
     this subsection. Any such appeal shall be taken by a notice 
     of appeal filed within 20 days after such judgment, decree, 
     or order is entered.
       (B) Jurisdiction.--The Supreme Court shall, if it has not 
     previously ruled on the question presented by an appeal taken 
     under subparagraph (A), accept jurisdiction over the appeal, 
     advance the appeal on the docket, and expedite the appeal.
       (c) Effective Date.--This joint resolution shall take 
     effect at 12:00 p.m. on January 20, 2009.

                          ____________________