[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 4892-4898]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. Casey):
  S. 3159. A bill to amend Public Law 10-377 to revise the boundaries 
of the Gettysburg National Military Park to include the Gettysburg 
Train Station, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Natural Resources.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce 
legislation to incorporate two historically significant properties into 
the boundary of Gettysburg National Military Park. This expansion 
effort is consistent with Gettysburg National Military Park's 1999 
General Management Plan, the goals of the National Park Service and is 
supported by the Gettysburg Borough Council.
  The bill I have introduced will expand the boundary of the park to 
include the Gettysburg Railroad Station, also known as the Lincoln 
Train Station, located in downtown Gettysburg, PA. This train station 
was built in 1858 and is listed in the National Register of Historic 
Places. The station served as a hospital during the Battle of 
Gettysburg and was the departure point for thousands of soldiers who 
were wounded or killed in battle. The Lincoln Train Station is perhaps 
most historically significant as the site at which President Abraham 
Lincoln arrived on November 18, 1863, 1 day before he delivered the 
Gettysburg Address.
  Currently, the station is operated by the National Trust for Historic 
Gettysburg and is open to the public throughout the year. Additionally, 
the station served as the home of the Pennsylvania Abraham Lincoln 
Bicentennial Commission, which promoted events to commemorate the 200th 
anniversary year of Lincoln's birth in 2009. I am informed that the 
borough of Gettysburg had planned for the Lincoln Train Station to be 
used as an information and orientation center for visitors. Toward that 
goal, the borough in 2006 completed a rehabilitation of the station 
funded thought a State grant but has been unable to operate the visitor 
center due to a lack of funds. Accordingly, I understand that the 
Gettysburg Borough Council voted in 2008 to transfer the station to the 
National Park Service.
  The legislation I introduced also expands the boundary of Gettysburg 
National Military Park to include 45 acres of land at the southern end 
of Gettysburg battlefield. I am informed by National Park officials 
that there were cavalry skirmishes in this area during the Battle of 
Gettysburg in July of 1863. Moreover, I am advised that this property 
is environmentally significant as the home to wetlands and wildlife 
habitat related to the Plum Run stream that traverses the park. This 
45-acre property is adjacent to current park land and was generously 
donated in April of 2009. Therefore, no federal land acquisition 
funding will be necessary to obtain this property.
  This legislation will help preserve properties and land that are 
historically and environmentally significant and critically important 
to telling the story of the Battle of Gettysburg. The Civil War was a 
defining moment for our Nation and we ought to take steps necessary to 
preserve historical assets for the benefit of current and future 
generations.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Specter):
  S. 3160. A bill to provide information, resources, recommendations, 
and funding to help State and local law enforcement enact crime 
prevention and intervention strategies supported by rigorous evidence; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the 
PRECAUTION Act--the Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal 
Activity Using Tailored Interventions in Our Neighborhoods Act. It is a 
long name, but it stands for an important principle--that it is better 
to invest in precautionary measures now than it is to pay the costs of 
crime--both in dollars and lives--later on. I am pleased that the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, will again join me as an 
original cosponsor of this legislation.
  The Federal Government has three important roles to play in fighting 
crime. First, the Federal Government should develop and disseminate 
knowledge to state and local officials regarding the newest and most 
effective law enforcement techniques and strategies. Second, the 
Federal Government should provide financial support for innovations 
that our State and local partners cannot afford to fund on their own. 
With that funding, it should also provide guidance, training, and 
technical assistance to implement those innovations. Third, the Federal 
Government can help to create and maintain

[[Page 4893]]

effective partnerships among agencies at all levels of government, 
partnerships that are crafted to address specific law enforcement 
challenges.
  The PRECAUTION Act is designed to support all three of these 
important roles. It creates a national commission to wade through the 
sea of information on crime prevention and intervention strategies 
currently available to identify those programs that are most ready for 
replication around the country. Over-taxed law enforcement officials 
need a simple, accessible resource to turn to that recommends a few, 
top-tier crime prevention and intervention programs. They need a 
resource that will single out those existing programs that are truly 
``evidence-based'' programs that are proven by scientifically reliable 
evidence to be effective. The commission created by the PRECAUTION Act 
will provide just such a report--written in plain language and focused 
on pragmatic implementation issues--approximately a year and a half 
after the bill is enacted.
  In the course of holding hearings and writing this first report, the 
commission will also identify some types of prevention and intervention 
strategies that are promising but need further research and development 
before they are ready for further implementation. The National 
Institute of Justice then will administer a grant program that will 
fund pilot projects in these identified areas. The commission will 
follow closely the progress of these pilot projects, and at the end of 
the three-year grant program, it will publish a second report, 
providing a detailed discussion of each pilot project and its 
effectiveness. This second report will include detailed implementation 
information and will discuss both the successes and failures of the 
projects funded by the grants.
  There is particular urgency for this bill as State and Federal budget 
shortfalls continue and State and local law enforcement are forced to 
do more with fewer resources. There is no doubt that money is tight, 
which makes it all the more important that innovative and cost-
effective law enforcement strategies that benefit both public safety 
and the government bottom line are being used in our communities. To 
help accomplish this, the Federal Government must work in concert with 
State and local law enforcement, with the non-profit criminal justice 
community, and with other branches of State and Federal Government. 
While we have an obligation to provide leadership and support, we do 
not have the right to unilaterally take control from the State and 
local officials on the ground. With these partnerships in place we can 
invest our resources in crime-fighting measures, confident that they 
will work. Sometimes, small and careful advances are the ones that 
yield the most benefit.
  The PRECAUTION Act answers a call by police chiefs and mayors from 
more than 50 cities around the country during a national conference 
hosted by the Police Executive Research Forum in 2006. According to a 
report on the event from the Forum, these law enforcement leaders 
agreed that while there is a desperate need for the law enforcement 
community to focus on violent crime, ``other municipal agencies and 
social services organizations--including schools, mental health, public 
health, courts, corrections, and conflict management groups--need to be 
brought together to partner toward the common goal of reducing violent 
crime.'' In the hearings held by the PRECAUTION Act commission, these 
voices will all be heard. In the reports filed by the commission, these 
perspectives will be acknowledged. In the pilot projects administered 
by the National Institute of Justice, these partnerships will be 
developed and fostered.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee highlighted the need for cost saving 
measures when it held a hearing entitled ``Encouraging Innovative and 
Cost-Effective Crime Reduction Strategies.'' Chief of Police Michael 
Schirling of Burlington, Vermont, in response to a question I asked him 
in conjunction with the hearing, said of the PRECAUTION Act that it 
would be:

       [A] useful tool for law enforcement that could, if properly 
     implemented, result in long-term cost savings not only for 
     law enforcement, but also for communities as a whole. The 
     manner in which creative initiatives would be studied to 
     validate their effectiveness and then added to a resource 
     library of new ideas seems like a prudent approach to 
     spreading important concepts and ideas to improve the 
     criminal justice system in a meaningful way.

  The PRECAUTION Act, though very modest in scope, is an important 
supplement to the essential financial support the Federal Government 
provides to our State and local law enforcement partners through 
programs such as the Byrne Justice Assistance grants and the COPS 
grants. When State and local law enforcement receive Federal support 
for policing, they have difficult decisions to make on how to spend 
those Federal dollars. We all know that prevention and intervention are 
integral components of any comprehensive law enforcement plan. The 
PRECAUTION Act not only highlights the importance of these components, 
but will also help to single out some of the best, most effective forms 
of prevention and intervention programs. At the same time, it will help 
to develop additional, cutting-edge strategies that are supported by 
solid scientific evidence of their effectiveness.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3160

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Prevention Resources for 
     Eliminating Criminal Activity Using Tailored Interventions in 
     Our Neighborhoods Act of 2010'' or the ``PRECAUTION Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

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

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

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

     SEC. 4. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH CRIME 
                   PREVENTION.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the National Commission on Public Safety Through 
     Crime Prevention.
       (b) Members.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 
     members, of whom--

[[Page 4894]]

       (A) 3 shall be appointed by the President, 1 of whom shall 
     be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice 
     Programs or a representative of such Assistant Attorney 
     General;
       (B) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, unless the Speaker is of the same party as 
     the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and 1 shall be 
     appointed by the minority leader of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (C) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives (in addition to any appointment made 
     under subparagraph (B));
       (D) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the 
     Senate, unless the majority leader is of the same party as 
     the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the 
     majority leader of the Senate and 1 shall be appointed by the 
     minority leader of the Senate; and
       (E) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the 
     Senate (in addition to any appointment made under 
     subparagraph (D)).
       (2) Persons eligible.--
       (A) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall be an 
     individual who has knowledge or expertise in matters to be 
     studied by the Commission.
       (B) Required representatives.--At least--
       (i) 2 members of the Commission shall be respected social 
     scientists with experience implementing or interpreting 
     rigorous, outcome-based trials; and
       (ii) 2 members of the Commission shall be law enforcement 
     practitioners.
       (3) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the 
     House of Representatives, and the majority leader and 
     minority leader of the Senate shall consult prior to the 
     appointment of the members of the Commission to achieve, to 
     the maximum extent possible, fair and equitable 
     representation of various points of view with respect to the 
     matters to be studied by the Commission.
       (4) Term.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of 
     the Commission.
       (5) Time for initial appointments.--The appointment of the 
     members shall be made not later than 60 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.
       (6) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
     in the manner in which the original appointment was made, and 
     shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which 
     the vacancy occurred.
       (7) Ex officio members.--The Director of the National 
     Institute of Justice, the Director of the Office of Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Director of the 
     Community Capacity Development Office, the Director of the 
     Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Director of the Bureau of 
     Justice Assistance, and the Director of Community Oriented 
     Policing Services (or a representative of each such director) 
     shall each serve in an ex officio capacity on the Commission 
     to provide advice and information to the Commission.
       (c) Operation.--
       (1) Chairperson.--At the initial meeting of the Commission, 
     the members of the Commission shall elect a chairperson from 
     among its voting members, by a vote of \2/3\ of the members 
     of the Commission. The chairperson shall retain this position 
     for the life of the Commission. If the chairperson leaves the 
     Commission, a new chairperson shall be selected, by a vote of 
     \2/3\ of the members of the Commission.
       (2) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson. The initial meeting of the Commission shall take 
     place not later than 30 days after the date on which all the 
     members of the Commission have been appointed.
       (3) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, and the 
     Commission may establish a lesser quorum for conducting 
     hearings scheduled by the Commission.
       (4) Rules.--The Commission may establish by majority vote 
     any other rules for the conduct of Commission business, if 
     such rules are not inconsistent with this Act or other 
     applicable law.
       (d) Public Hearings.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall hold public hearings. 
     The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such 
     times and places, take such testimony, and receive such 
     evidence as the Commission considers advisable to carry out 
     its duties under this section.
       (2) Focus of hearings.--The Commission shall hold at least 
     3 separate public hearings, each of which shall focus on 1 of 
     the subcategories.
       (3) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before 
     the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to 
     witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code. 
     The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be 
     paid from funds appropriated to the Commission.
       (e) Comprehensive Study of Evidence-Based Crime Prevention 
     and Intervention Strategies.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall carry out a 
     comprehensive study of the effectiveness of crime and 
     delinquency prevention and intervention strategies, organized 
     around the 3 subcategories.
       (2) Matters included.--The study under paragraph (1) shall 
     include--
       (A) a review of research on the general effectiveness of 
     incorporating crime prevention and intervention strategies 
     into an overall law enforcement plan;
       (B) an evaluation of how to more effectively communicate 
     the wealth of social science research to practitioners;
       (C) a review of evidence regarding the effectiveness of 
     specific crime prevention and intervention strategies, 
     focusing on those strategies supported by rigorous evidence;
       (D) an identification of--
       (i) promising areas for further research and development; 
     and
       (ii) other areas representing gaps in the body of knowledge 
     that would benefit from additional research and development;
       (E) an assessment of the best practices for implementing 
     prevention and intervention strategies;
       (F) an assessment of the best practices for gathering 
     rigorous evidence regarding the implementation of 
     intervention and prevention strategies; and
       (G) an assessment of those top-tier strategies best suited 
     for duplication efforts in a range of settings across the 
     country.
       (3) Initial report on top-tier crime prevention and 
     intervention strategies.--
       (A) Distribution.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall submit a public report on the study 
     carried out under this subsection to--
       (i) the President;
       (ii) Congress;
       (iii) the Attorney General;
       (iv) the Chief Federal Public Defender of each district;
       (v) the chief executive of each State;
       (vi) the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     Courts of each State;
       (vii) the Director of the Administrative Office of the 
     United States Courts; and
       (viii) the attorney general of each State.
       (B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall 
     include--
       (i) the findings and conclusions of the Commission;
       (ii) a summary of the top-tier strategies, including--

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

       (iii) recommended protocols for implementing crime and 
     delinquency prevention and intervention strategies generally;
       (iv) recommended protocols for evaluating the effectiveness 
     of crime and delinquency prevention and intervention 
     strategies; and
       (v) a summary of the materials relied upon by the 
     Commission in preparation of the report.
       (C) Consultation with outside authorities.--In developing 
     the recommended protocols for implementation and rigorous 
     evaluation of top-tier crime and delinquency prevention and 
     intervention strategies under this paragraph, the Commission 
     shall consult with the Committee on Law and Justice at the 
     National Academy of Science and with national associations 
     representing the law enforcement and social science 
     professions, including the National Sheriffs' Association, 
     the Police Executive Research Forum, the International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police, the Consortium of Social 
     Science Associations, and the American Society of 
     Criminology.
       (f) Recommendations Regarding Innovative Crime Prevention 
     and Intervention Strategies.--
       (1) Submission.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of 
     the final hearing under subsection (d) relating to a 
     subcategory, the Commission shall provide the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice and the Attorney General with 
     recommendations on qualifying considerations relating to that 
     subcategory for selecting recipients of contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, and grants under section 5.
       (B) Deadline.--Not later than 13 months after the date on 
     which all members of the Commission have been appointed, the 
     Commission shall provide all recommendations required under 
     this subsection.
       (2) Matters included.--The recommendations provided under 
     paragraph (1) shall include recommendations relating to--
       (A) the types of strategies for the applicable subcategory 
     that would best benefit from additional research and 
     development;
       (B) any geographic or demographic targets;
       (C) the types of partnerships with other public or private 
     entities that might be pertinent and prioritized; and
       (D) any classes of crime and delinquency prevention and 
     intervention strategies that should not be given priority 
     because of a pre-existing base of knowledge that would 
     benefit less from additional research and development.
       (g) Final Report on the Results of Innovative Crime 
     Prevention and Intervention Strategies.--

[[Page 4895]]

       (1) In general.--Following the close of the 3-year period 
     for the evaluation of an innovative strategy under section 5, 
     the Commission shall collect the results of the evaluation 
     and shall submit a public report to the President, the 
     Attorney General, Congress, the chief executive of each 
     State, and the attorney general of each State describing each 
     strategy funded under section 5 and the results of the 
     strategy. The report under this paragraph shall be submitted 
     not later than 5 years after the date of the selection of the 
     chairperson of the Commission.
       (2) Collection of information and evidence regarding 
     recipients.--The collection of information and evidence by 
     the Commission regarding each recipient of a contract, 
     cooperative agreement, or grant under section 5 shall be 
     carried out by--
       (A) ongoing communications with the grant administrator at 
     the National Institute of Justice and other appropriate 
     officers at other components of the Department of Justice;
       (B) visits by representatives of the Commission (including 
     at least 1 member of the Commission) to the site where the 
     recipient of a contract, cooperative agreement, or grant is 
     carrying out the strategy funded under section 5, at least 
     once in the second and once in the third year of the 
     contract, cooperative agreement, or grant;
       (C) a review of the data generated by the study monitoring 
     the effectiveness of the strategy; and
       (D) other means as necessary.
       (3) Matters included.--The report submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall include a review of each strategy carried out with 
     a contract, cooperative agreement, or grant under section 5, 
     detailing--
       (A) the type of crime or delinquency prevention or 
     intervention strategy;
       (B) where the activities under the strategy were carried 
     out, including geographic and demographic targets;
       (C) any partnerships with public or private entities 
     through the course of the period of the contract, cooperative 
     agreement, or grant;
       (D) the type and design of the effectiveness study 
     conducted under section 5(b)(4) or section 5(c)(2)(C) for 
     that strategy;
       (E) the results of the effectiveness study conducted under 
     section 5(b)(4) or section 5(c)(2)(C) for that strategy;
       (F) lessons learned regarding implementation of that 
     strategy or of the effectiveness study conducted under 
     section 5(b)(4) or section 5(c)(2)(C), including 
     recommendations regarding which types of environments might 
     best be suited for successful replication; and
       (G) recommendations regarding the need for further research 
     and development of the strategy.
       (h) Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of service for the Commission.
       (2) Compensation of members.--Members of the Commission 
     shall serve without compensation.
       (3) Staff.--
       (A) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (B) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     such title.
       (4) Detail of federal employees.--With the affirmative vote 
     of \2/3\ of the members of the Commission, any Federal 
     Government employee, with the approval of the head of the 
     appropriate Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission 
     without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without 
     interruption or loss of civil service status, benefits, or 
     privileges.
       (i) Contracts for Research.--
       (1) National institute of justice.--With a \2/3\ 
     affirmative vote of the members of the Commission, the 
     Commission may select nongovernmental researchers and experts 
     to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under 
     this Act. The National Institute of Justice shall contract 
     with the researchers and experts selected by the Commission 
     to provide funding in exchange for their services.
       (2) Other organizations.--Nothing in this subsection shall 
     be construed to limit the ability of the Commission to enter 
     into contracts with other entities or organizations for 
     research necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission 
     under this section.
       (j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
       (k) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the 
     date that is 30 days after the date on which the Commission 
     submits the last report required by this section.
       (l) Exemption.--The Commission shall be exempt from the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act.

     SEC. 5. INNOVATIVE CRIME PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION 
                   STRATEGIES.

       (a) In General.--The Attorney General may fund the 
     implementation and evaluation of innovative crime or 
     delinquency prevention or intervention strategies though 
     coordinated initiatives, as described in subsection (b), 
     through grants authorized under subsection (c), or a 
     combination of the coordinated initiatives and grants.
       (b) Coordinated Initiatives.--
       (1) In general.--The Attorney General, acting through the 
     Director of the National Institute of Justice, may coordinate 
     efforts between the National Institute of Justice and other 
     appropriate components of the Department of Justice to 
     implement and rigorously evaluate innovative crime or 
     delinquency prevention or intervention strategies.
       (2) Selection of strategies.--The Director of the National 
     Institute of Justice, in consultation with the heads of other 
     appropriate components of the Department of Justice, shall 
     identify innovative crime or delinquency prevention or 
     intervention strategies that would best benefit from 
     additional funding and evaluation, taking into consideration 
     the recommendations of the Commission under section 4(f).
       (3) Program office role.--The head of any appropriate 
     component of the Department of Justice, as determined by the 
     Attorney General, may provide incentives under a contract, 
     cooperative agreement, or grant entered into or made by the 
     component, including a competitive preference priority and 
     providing additional funds, for a public or private entity 
     to--
       (A) implement a strategy identified under paragraph (2); or
       (B) participate in the evaluation under paragraph (4) of 
     the strategies identified under paragraph (2).
       (4) National institute of justice evaluation.--
       (A) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of 
     Justice may enter into or make contracts, cooperative 
     agreements, or grants to conduct a rigorous study of the 
     effectiveness of each strategy relating to which an incentive 
     is provided under paragraph (3).
       (B) Amount and duration.--A contract, cooperative 
     agreement, or grant under subparagraph (A) shall be for not 
     more than $700,000, and shall be for a period of not more 
     than 3 years.
       (C) Methodology of study.--Each study conducted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall use a study design that is likely to 
     produce rigorous evidence of the effectiveness of the 
     strategy and, where feasible, measure outcomes using 
     available administrative data, such as police arrest records, 
     so as to minimize the costs of the study.
       (c) Grants Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of 
     Justice may make grants to public and private entities to 
     fund the implementation and evaluation of innovative crime or 
     delinquency prevention or intervention strategies. The 
     purpose of grants under this subsection shall be to provide 
     funds for all expenses related to the implementation of such 
     a strategy and to conduct a rigorous study on the 
     effectiveness of that strategy.
       (2) Grant distribution.--
       (A) Period.--A grant under this subsection shall be made 
     for a period of not more than 3 years.
       (B) Amount.--The amount of each grant under this 
     subsection--
       (i) shall be sufficient to ensure that rigorous evaluations 
     may be performed; and
       (ii) shall not exceed $2,000,000.
       (C) Evaluation set-aside.--
       (i) In general.--A grantee shall use not less than $300,000 
     and not more than $700,000 of the funds from a grant under 
     this subsection for a rigorous study of the effectiveness of 
     the strategy during the 3-year period of the grant for that 
     strategy.
       (ii) Methodology of study.--

       (I) In general.--Each study conducted under clause (i) 
     shall use an evaluator and a study design approved by the 
     employee of the National Institute of Justice hired or 
     assigned under subsection (e) and, where feasible, measure 
     outcomes using available administrative data, such as police 
     arrest records, so as to minimize the costs of the study.
       (II) Criteria.--The employee of the National Institute of 
     Justice hired or assigned under subsection (e) shall 
     approve--

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

       (III) Approval.--Before a grant is awarded under this 
     subsection, the evaluator and study design of a grantee shall 
     be approved by the employee of the National Institute of 
     Justice hired or assigned under subsection (e).

[[Page 4896]]

       (D) Date of award.--Not later than 6 months after the date 
     of receiving recommendations relating to a subcategory from 
     the Commission under section 4(f), the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice shall award all grants under 
     this subsection relating to that subcategory.
       (E) Type of grants.--One-third of the grants made under 
     this subsection shall be made in each subcategory. In 
     distributing grants, the recommendations of the Commission 
     under section 4(f) shall be considered.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $18,000,000 to carry out subsections (b) 
     and (c).
       (e) Dedicated Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of 
     Justice shall hire or assign a full-time employee to oversee 
     the contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants under this 
     section.
       (2) Study oversight.--The employee of the National 
     Institute of Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1) 
     shall be responsible for ensuring that recipients of a 
     contract, cooperative agreement, or grant under this section 
     adhere to the study design approved before the contract, 
     cooperative agreement, or grant was entered into or awarded.
       (3) Liaison.--The employee of the National Institute of 
     Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1) may be used as 
     a liaison between the Commission and the recipients of a 
     contract, cooperative agreement, or grant under this section. 
     The employee shall be responsible for ensuring timely 
     cooperation with Commission requests.
       (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated $150,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 
     through 2014 to carry out this subsection.
       (f) Applications.--A public or private entity desiring a 
     contract, cooperative agreement, or grant under this section 
     shall submit an application at such time, in such manner, and 
     accompanied by such information as the Director of the 
     National Institute of Justice or other appropriate component 
     of the Department of Justice may reasonably require.
       (g) Cooperation With the Commission.--A person entering 
     into a contract or cooperative agreement or receiving a grant 
     under this section shall cooperate with the Commission in 
     providing the Commission with full information on the 
     progress of the strategy being carried out with a contract, 
     cooperative agreement, or grant under this section, 
     including--
       (1) hosting visits by the members of the Commission to the 
     site where the activities under the strategy are being 
     carried out;
       (2) providing pertinent information on the logistics of 
     establishing the strategy for which the contract, cooperative 
     agreement, or grant under this section was received, 
     including details on partnerships, selection of participants, 
     and any efforts to publicize the strategy; and
       (3) responding to any specific inquiries that may be made 
     by the Commission.

     SEC. 6. FUNDING.

       Section 524(c) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(12) For the first full fiscal year after the date of 
     enactment of the PRECAUTION Act, and each fiscal year 
     thereafter through the end of the fifth full fiscal year 
     after such date of enactment, there is appropriated to the 
     Attorney General from the Fund $4,750,000 to carry out the 
     PRECAUTION Act.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. SHAHEEN:
  S. 3161. A bill to establish penalties for servicers that fail to 
timely evaluate the applications of homeowners under home loan 
modification programs; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
Affairs.
  Ms. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Mortgage 
Modification Reform Act, which is designed to protect homeowners and 
communities from big banks who fail to modify mortgages in a timely 
fashion.
  In the past year I have heard from hundreds of families in New 
Hampshire who have fallen behind on their mortgages. Often, they tell 
me that they can no longer afford their payments because of 
circumstances beyond their control. A family member has been laid off 
or had her hours reduced. Medical bills have started piling up. Higher 
interest payments kicked in at just the wrong time. And since value of 
the average home has declined over 15 percent in New Hampshire, they 
now owe more on their home than it's worth.
  But these families want to make it work, so they reach out to their 
bank or ``mortgage servicer'' to figure out a way to make payments they 
can afford. Often, when a homeowner comes to a servicer, they can work 
together to bring the homeowner's payments down to an affordable level. 
When a servicer modifies a mortgage, everybody wins: the homeowner can 
stay in their home; the servicer avoids the costly foreclosure process; 
and communities are spared from the devastating effects that 
foreclosures have on home values and communities.
  That is why these families in New Hampshire and others across the 
country breathed a sigh of relief when they heard that a new program, 
called the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, would provide 
powerful incentives to servicers to work with borrowers to keep them in 
their homes.
  We were told that HAMP would help 3-4 million homeowners stay in 
their homes by reducing the amount a family owes each month to 31 
percent of its monthly income. The big, national servicer banks who 
signed up for the program would avoid the foreclosure process and 
receive incentive payments. Most importantly, communities would have 
benefitted by stemming the tide of foreclosures, which have so 
drastically lowered home values and the equity of millions of 
homeowners.
  But a year into the program, it is clear that many of these big banks 
are unwilling or uninterested in helping people in our communities. The 
banks routinely lose documents and ask the borrower to send them in 
again, delaying the process for months at a time. They don't respond to 
calls and voice messages that are only returned weeks or months later--
if they are returned at all. And as homeowners wait for a decision, the 
banks charge them late fees, which puts them even further behind. When 
homeowners finally receive modification offers, they often come at the 
last minute--just days before the borrower's home is set to be 
auctioned.
  As a result of these abuses, instead of helping the millions of 
homeowners that they promised would be able to stay in their homes, 
servicers have offered trial modifications to less than 30 percent of 
eligible homeowners. The banks participating in HAMP have only provided 
permanent relief to only 116,000 homeowners.
  We know that the servicers are capable of success in this program 
because some servicers have been better than others. According to the 
latest Servicer Performance Report from the Treasury, some servicers 
have helped as little as 2 percent of their eligible borrowers, while 
others have helped over 50 percent. And it's not surprising that some 
of the servicers with the worst numbers are the same big banks that 
were happy to be bailed out by TARP not too long ago.
  It is time to tell these big banks that enough's enough. We need 
protections for homeowners, and we need to penalize the servicers who 
have failed to offer the help they promised.
  That is why I am introducing legislation today, the Mortgage 
Modification Reform Act, to stop the big banks from abusing homeowners 
and to start penalizing those who do not live up to their promise to 
provide homeowners with the relief they need.
  The Mortgage Modification Reform Act would charge banks ``late fees'' 
for every month that they fail to evaluate a homeowner for this 
program. After 3 months, if a homeowner has not received an answer on 
whether their mortgage will be modified, the banks' payments will be 
reduced 10 percent for each month that it fails to evaluate the 
homeowner. By reducing payments to the banks over time, the bank will 
be encouraged to evaluate these borrowers earlier and more frequently. 
This also protects the taxpayer by only rewarding those banks that 
respond quickly and punishing those that fail to act. Banks will have 
to perform to get paid, and if they don't, their compensation will stay 
with to the taxpayer.
  This legislation would also require banks to stop the foreclosure 
process until it determines whether a borrower qualifies. This would 
also give much-needed peace of mind to homeowners who aren't sure which 
will come first: the modification they need, or the sale of their home.
  In addition, the legislation would prevent banks from imposing fees 
while they wait for a decision. There is no reason that a bank should 
charge a homeowner for being delinquent while waiting for evaluation in 
the program. There is no reason for a homeowner to pay fees for an 
unnecessary foreclosure

[[Page 4897]]

process. This legislation would put an end to these abusive practices.
  Finally, the Mortgage Modification Reform Act provides a protection 
for borrowers that has been missing from day one of this program: a way 
for homeowners to request a review of the bank's decision. Right now, 
the banks make all the decisions whether a homeowner qualifies for the 
program or not. There is no way for the homeowner to appeal that 
decision. But we know that those decisions aren't always right. Many 
homeowners were originally told that they didn't qualify, but ask their 
Senator or get legal assistance to ask the servicer to take another 
look. Often, they did qualify for the program, but the servicer did not 
evaluate the borrower properly.
  But not every homeowner should have to involve their Senator or a 
lawyer to get their bank to respond. They should be able to make their 
case on their own to an independent arbiter. This legislation requires 
the Treasury Department to create a separate, independent review 
process to allow homeowners who feel they have been wrongly denied the 
chance to stay in their home. In addition, to ensure transparency, this 
legislation would require the servicer to submit documentation to the 
Treasury for each denial that it makes.
  Making this program work isn't just important for these homeowners, 
it's also critical to our economic recovery. With million homeowners 
across the nation behind on their mortgages and at risk of foreclosure, 
we need this program achieve its potential of stopping millions of 
homes from flooding the housing market and further depressing home 
values.
  I urge my colleagues to join me to prevent banks from continuing to 
abuse this program, and to get it on track to provide help to the 
millions of homeowners who need it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3161

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mortgage Modification Reform 
     Act of 2010''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act--
       (1) the term ``covered trial loan modification'' means a 
     trial loan modification--
       (A) offered by a servicer to a homeowner under a home loan 
     modification program; and
       (B) for which the servicer has received from the homeowner 
     the information required for a trial loan modification;
       (2) the term ``home loan modification program'' means a 
     home loan modification program put into effect by the 
     Secretary under title I of division A of the Emergency 
     Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (12 U.S.C. 5211 et seq.), 
     including the Home Affordable Modification Program;
       (3) the term ``homeowner'' means an individual who applies 
     for a home loan modification under a home loan modification 
     program;
       (4) the term ``permanent loan modification'' means any 
     agreement reached between a homeowner and a servicer on a 
     long-term basis, as determined by the Secretary, under a home 
     loan modification program;
       (5) the term ``qualified counselor'' means a qualified 
     counselor described in section 255(f) of the National Housing 
     Act (12 U.S.C. 1715z-20(f));
       (6) the term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the 
     Treasury;
       (7) the term ``servicer'' has the same meaning as in 
     section 129 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1639a) 
     (relating to the duties of servicers of residential 
     mortgages), as added by section 201(b) of the Helping 
     Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-22; 123 
     Stat. 1638);
       (8) the term ``servicer incentive payment'' means a payment 
     that is made by the Secretary to a servicer--
       (A) in exchange, or as an incentive, for making a loan 
     modification under a home loan modification program; and
       (B) at the time the servicer makes an offer of a trial or 
     permanent modification to a homeowner; and
       (9) the term ``trial loan modification'' means any 
     agreement reached between a homeowner and a servicer on a 
     temporary basis, as determined by the Secretary, under a home 
     loan modification program.

     SEC. 3. FORECLOSURE.

       A servicer may not initiate or continue a foreclosure 
     proceeding with respect to the mortgage of a homeowner if--
       (1) the homeowner submitted an application for a loan 
     modification under a home loan modification program--
       (A) before receiving a notice of foreclosure from the 
     servicer; or
       (B) not later than 30 days after the homeowner received a 
     notice of foreclosure from the servicer; and
       (2) the servicer has not made a determination, as described 
     in section 5(a) that the homeowner does not qualify for a 
     loan modification under a home loan modification program.

     SEC. 4. PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF IMPROPER DENIALS.

       (a) Process for Review.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a process by 
     which a homeowner may request the Secretary to review a 
     denial by a servicer of an application by the homeowner for a 
     trial loan modification or permanent loan modification.
       (2) Qualified counselors.--The process established under 
     paragraph (1) shall include the use of qualified counselors 
     to report wrongful denials of trial loan modifications and 
     permanent loan modifications.
       (3) Supporting documentation.--The Secretary shall require 
     a servicer to submit supporting documentation with respect to 
     any denial by the servicer of an application by a homeowner 
     for a trial loan modification or permanent loan modification 
     that is reviewed by the Secretary under the process 
     established under paragraph (1).
       (b) Penalties.--If the Secretary determines after a review 
     under the process established under subsection (a) that a 
     servicer has wrongly denied the application of a homeowner 
     for a trial loan modification or a permanent loan 
     modification, the Secretary shall impose a penalty on the 
     servicer.

     SEC. 5. PENALTIES FOR SERVICERS THAT DO NOT TIMELY EVALUATE 
                   HOMEOWNERS.

       (a) Time for Evaluation of Homeowners.--Not later than 3 
     months after the date on which a homeowner submits an 
     application for a loan modification to a servicer that 
     participates in a home loan modification program, the 
     servicer shall--
       (1) evaluate the application of the homeowner; and
       (2) notify the homeowner that--
       (A) the homeowner is qualified for a trial loan 
     modification or a permanent loan modification under the home 
     loan modification program; or
       (B) the servicer has denied the application.
       (b) Priority for Evaluating Amendments.--
       (1) Priority.--A servicer that participates in a home loan 
     modification program shall evaluate the applications of 
     homeowners for loan modifications in the order in which the 
     servicer receives the applications.
       (2) Prohibition.--A servicer that participates in a home 
     loan modification program may not select the order in which 
     the applications of homeowners are evaluated for loan 
     modifications--
       (A) on the basis of--
       (i) the income of the homeowner that made the application; 
     or
       (ii) the value of the loan for which a modification is 
     requested; or
       (B) for any reason other than the time at which the 
     servicer receives the applications.
       (c) Late Fees for Servicers.--
       (1) Reduced servicer incentive payments for loans 
     individual homeowners.--The Secretary shall reduce the amount 
     of any servicer incentive payment with respect to the loan 
     modification of an individual homeowner by 10 percent for 
     each full month that--
       (A) follows the date that is 3 months after the date on 
     which the homeowner submits an application for a loan 
     modification to the servicer; and
       (B) precedes the date on which the servicer notifies the 
     homeowner under subsection (a)(2).
       (2) Reduced payments for all loans.--If the Secretary 
     determines that, on the date that is 3 months after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, less than 75 percent of all 
     homeowners who applied to a servicer for loan modifications 
     under a home loan modification program have been evaluated 
     within 3 months of the date of the application, the Secretary 
     shall reduce by 25 percent the amount of any servicer 
     incentive payment the servicer would otherwise be eligible to 
     receive under the home loan modification program.
       (d) Delinquency Fees Charged to Homeowners.--No servicer 
     may impose a fee on a homeowner due to delinquency during the 
     period beginning on the date on which the homeowner submits 
     an application to the servicer for a loan modification and 
     ending on the date on which the homeowner receives notice 
     under subsection (a)(2).
       (e) Collection and Report of Data.--
       (1) Collection of data.--Each servicer shall report to the 
     Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may determine, data relating to the processing by the 
     servicer of applications for loan modifications.
       (2) Report of data.--The Secretary shall publish a monthly 
     report containing the data collected under paragraph (1).

[[Page 4898]]



     SEC. 6. REDUCED PAYMENTS FOR FAILURE TO EVALUATE HOMEOWNERS 
                   FOR PERMANENT MODIFICATIONS.

       If the Secretary determines that, on the date that is 3 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, less than 70 
     percent of all covered trial loan modifications offered by a 
     servicer have been evaluated for conversion to permanent loan 
     modifications before the date that is 3 months after the date 
     on which the servicer and the homeowner entered into an 
     agreement for a trial loan modification, the Secretary shall 
     reduce by 25 percent the amount of any servicer incentive 
     payment the servicer would otherwise be eligible to receive 
     under the home loan modification program. Such reduction 
     shall be in addition to any other reduction in payment that 
     may have been imposed on the servicer for any other violation 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 7. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION RELATING TO PAYMENTS TO 
                   HOMEOWNERS.

       Nothing in this Act may be construed to require a reduction 
     of a payment by the Secretary made on behalf or for the 
     benefit of a homeowner in connection with a loan 
     modification.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Begich, Mr. 
        Bennet, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Brown, of Ohio, Mr. 
        Burris, Mr. Byrd, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
        Casey, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Franken, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mrs. 
        Hagan, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Kaufman, Mr. 
        Kerry, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Kohl, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, 
        Mr. Leahy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Lieberman, Mrs. Lincoln, Mrs. 
        McCaskill, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Merkley, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. 
        Pryor, Mr. Reed, Mr. Reid, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Sanders, Mr. 
        Schumer, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Specter, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Tester, 
        Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Udall of New Mexico, Mr. Warner, Mr. 
        Webb, Mr. Whitehouse, and Mr. Wyden):
  S. 3162. A bill to clarify the health care provided by the Secretary 
of Veterans Affairs that constitutes minimum essential coverage; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, concerns have been raised to me about a technical 
error in the health care reform bill that was recently passed, the 
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, H.R. 3590. In drafting the 
PPACA, a provision was included which designates health care provided 
under VA's authority as meeting the minimum required health care 
coverage that an individual is required to maintain.
  However, due to the way this exemption was worded, this definition 
may exclude children with spina bifida, who are seriously disabled and 
to whom VA provides reimbursement for comprehensive health care. The 
underlying bill gave authority to the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services to designate other care, which could include the VA spina 
bifida program, as meeting the definition of minimum essential 
coverage. This bill would simply clarify what was originally intended.
  Chapter 18 of title 38 contains the Spina Bifida Health Care Program, 
which is a health benefit program administered by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs for Vietnam War and certain Korean War Veterans' birth 
children who have been diagnosed with spina bifida, except spina bifida 
occulta. The program provides reimbursement for medical services and 
supplies.
  The legislation I introduce today corrects this small error. 
Additionally, this legislation would clarify that recipients of CHAMPVA 
would also be considered as meeting the requirement for minimum 
essential coverage.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3162

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

     SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDED BY THE 
                   SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS THAT CONSTITUTES 
                   MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.

       (a) In General.--Clause (v) of section 5000A(f)(1)(A) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 
     1501(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(v) chapter 17 or 18 of title 38, United States Code, or 
     otherwise under the laws administered by the Secretary of 
     Veterans Affairs, of an individual entitled to coverage under 
     such chapter or laws for essential health benefits (as 
     defined by the Secretary for purposes of section 1302(b) of 
     the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) insofar as 
     such benefits are available under such chapter or laws; or''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect as if included in section 1501(b) of the 
     Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and shall be 
     executed immediately after the amendments made by such 
     section 1501(b).

                          ____________________