[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11318-11329]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. AKAKA:
  S. 3517. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the 
processing of claims for disability compensation filed with the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, I introduce the proposed Claims Processing 
Improvement Act of 2010, to focus on enhancements that can be made to 
adjudicate veterans' disability compensation claims in a more timely 
and accurate manner.
  VA has seen a dramatic rise in the number of claims, driven by a 
number of factors, including the aging of the general veteran 
population and our prolonged involvement in two overseas conflicts. 
Further complicating matters, many claims are increasing in complexity, 
as veterans seek service-connection for multiple disabilities and for 
disabilities that are difficult to diagnose, such as traumatic brain 
injury and post traumatic stress disorder.
  Claims adjudication is an intricate process that has seen many 
piecemeal changes in recent years. Unfortunately, these changes have 
yet to produce the results that veterans deserve. My goal, a goal that 
I am sure is widely shared, is to ensure that veterans are provided 
accurate and timely resolution to their claims.
  This legislation I am introducing today would make several 
improvements in the claims adjudication process. Provisions in title I 
of the bill would establish a pilot program that would utilize ICD 
codes to identify disabilities of the musculoskeletal system. Over 
fifty percent of Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom veterans that 
the Department of Veterans Affairs has had some health care contact 
with have a possible musculoskeletal diagnosis. ICD codes are standard 
medical condition identification codes used in electronic records that 
have been adapted by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for 
electronic transmission of medical data.
  This proposed pilot program would take place in six to ten regional 
offices and require VA to develop a new method of rating claims, which 
would consider the frequency, severity, and duration of symptoms of the 
disability in rating the claim, rather than the current rating schedule 
published in the Code of Federal Regulations. The current rating 
schedule adds to the complexity of claims adjudication, because many 
disabilities claimed are not exactly as described in the regulation and 
several rating codes may need to be considered. The new rating schedule 
would focus on the impact of the disability, for example, an inability 
to walk normally, rather than a particular VA rating code 
classification. All limitations resulting from all disabilities of the 
musculoskeletal system would be combined to provide one rating, rather 
than separate ratings for each individual disability. This information 
would be placed into an organized and searchable electronic record. A 
veteran could elect to not participate in the pilot program. I believe 
that such an approach will result in fairer, comprehensive ratings for 
the entire musculoskeletal system.
  Title II of the bill includes a number of provisions that are 
intended to yield some near-term changes to the claims processing 
system and should help reduce the overall time a claim is under 
consideration by VA. During the last several years, the Committee has 
held oversight hearings on the claims processing system. Many of the 
provisions in this legislation were first suggested by veterans service 
organizations and other interested parties in connection with those 
hearings. Others have been recommended by the administration. The 
legislation I am introducing today serves as a starting point to move 
forward in our effort to improve VA's claims adjudication process.
  Provisions in title II would allow for VA to issue partial ratings of 
claims that include multiple issues for those issues that can 
adjudicated expeditiously; give equal deference to private medical 
opinions during the rating process; and clarify that the Secretary is 
required to provide notice to claimants of additional information and 
evidence required only when additional evidence is actually required. 
It would also modify filing periods for notices of disagreement from 
one year to 180 days and require a claimant to file a substantive 
appeal within 60 days of the Department issuing a post-Notice of 
Disagreement decision both of these modifications would contain good 
cause exceptions to the filing deadlines.
  Other provisions in title II would automatically waive the review of 
new evidence by the agency of original jurisdiction, usually a Regional 
Office, so that any evidence submitted after the initial decision would 
be subject to initial review at the Board of Veterans' Appeals unless 
the claimant or the claimant's representative requests in writing that 
the agency of original jurisdiction initially review such evidence. 
This legislation would also replace the Secretary's obligation to 
provide a Statement of the Case with an obligation to provide a post-
Notice of Disagreement decision. The post-Notice of Disagreement 
decision would be in plain language and contain a description of the 
specific facts in the case that support the decision including, if 
applicable, an assessment as to the credibility of any lay evidence 
pertinent to the issue or issues with which disagreement has been 
expressed; a citation to pertinent laws and regulations that support 
the decision; the decision on each issue and a summary of the reasons 
why the evidence relied upon supports such decision under the specific 
laws and regulations applied; and the date by which a substantive 
appeal must be filed in order to obtain further review of the decision. 
The Secretary would also be required to send, with a rating decision, a 
form that if completed and returned, would suffice as a notice of 
disagreement.
  This is not a comprehensive recitation of all of the provisions 
within this important veterans' legislation but does, I hope, provide 
an overview of the changes encompassed in this bill.
  Everyone involved realizes that there is no quick fix to solving the 
myriad issues associated with disability claims processing, but the 
Committee intends to do everything within its power to improve this 
situation. To bring optimal change to a system this complicated and 
critical, we must be deliberative, focused, and open to input from all 
who are involved in this process.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.

[[Page 11319]]

  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3517

       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 ``Claims 
     Processing Improvement Act of 2010''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

       TITLE I--RATING OF SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES MATTERS

Sec. 101. Pilot program on evaluation and rating of service-connected 
              disabilities of the musculoskeletal system.

               TITLE II--ADJUDICATION AND APPEAL MATTERS

Sec. 201. Partial adjudication of claims for disability compensation 
              consisting of multiple issues one or more of which can be 
              quickly adjudicated.
Sec. 202. Clarification that requirement of Secretary of Veterans 
              Affairs to provide notice to claimants of additional 
              information and evidence required only applies when 
              additional information or evidence is actually required.
Sec. 203. Equal deference to private medical opinions in assessing 
              claims for disability compensation.
Sec. 204. Improvements to disability compensation claim review process.
Sec. 205. Provision by Secretary of Veterans Affairs of notice of 
              disagreement forms to initiate appellate review with 
              notices of decisions of Department of Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 206. Modification of filing period for notice of disagreement to 
              initiate appellate review of decisions of Department of 
              Veterans Affairs.
Sec. 207. Modification of substantive appeal process.
Sec. 208. Provision of post-notice of disagreement decisions to 
              claimants who file notice of disagreements.
Sec. 209. Automatic waiver of agency of original jurisdiction review of 
              new evidence.
Sec. 210. Authority for Board of Veterans' Appeals to determine 
              location and manner of appearance for hearings.
Sec. 211. Decision by Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims on all 
              issues raised by appellants.
Sec. 212. Good cause extension of period for filing notice of appeal 
              with United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Sec. 213. Pilot program on participation of local and tribal 
              governments in improving quality of claims for disability 
              compensation submitted to Department of Veterans Affairs.

       TITLE I--RATING OF SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES MATTERS

     SEC. 101. PILOT PROGRAM ON EVALUATION AND RATING OF SERVICE-
                   CONNECTED DISABILITIES OF THE MUSCULOSKELETAL 
                   SYSTEM.

       (a) Pilot Program Required.--The Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall carry out a pilot program to assess the 
     feasibility and advisability of applying an alternative 
     schedule for rating service-connected disabilities of the 
     musculoskeletal system.
       (b) Schedule for Rating Service-connected Disabilities.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 240 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish an 
     alternative schedule for rating service-connected 
     disabilities of the musculoskeletal system.
       (2) Publication in federal register.--Not later than 270 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary shall publish the alternative schedule established 
     under paragraph (1) in the Federal Register.
       (3) Collaboration.--The Secretary shall establish the 
     alternative schedule required by paragraph (1) 
     collaboratively through the Under Secretary for Benefits, the 
     Under Secretary for Health, and the General Counsel.
       (4) Elements.--The alternative schedule for rating 
     disabilities under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
       (A) The use of the International Classification of 
     Diseases, as adopted by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services under section 1173(c) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1320d-2(c)) and any successor revisions to such 
     classification so adopted, for purposes of identifying 
     disabilities of the musculoskeletal system.
       (B) A residual functional capacity assessment instrument to 
     describe the functional musculoskeletal loss resulting from 
     any disability of the musculoskeletal system.
       (C) Mechanisms for the assignment of one residual 
     functional capacity rating for all musculoskeletal 
     disabilities determined to be service-connected, which 
     mechanisms shall take into account the following:
       (i) Frequency of symptoms affecting residual functional 
     capacity of the musculoskeletal system, set forth as a range 
     of--

       (I) infrequent (once a year or less);
       (II) several (two to six) times a year;
       (III) occasional (seven to twelve times a year);
       (IV) weekly; and
       (V) daily or continuous.

       (ii) Severity of symptoms affecting residual functional 
     capacity of the musculoskeletal system resulting in loss of 
     functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system, set forth 
     as a range of--

       (I) minimal (symptoms present but requiring no treatment);
       (II) slight (such as requiring minor alteration of activity 
     or treatment with over-the-counter medication);
       (III) mild (such as requiring rest of relevant body part 
     and use of over-the-counter medication, prescription 
     medication, or therapy, such as ice or heat to an affected 
     part);
       (IV) moderate (such as requiring medical evaluation and 
     treatment or prescription medication for pain or symptom 
     control with side effects which can be expected to interfere 
     with full performance of work-related activities); and
       (V) moderately severe to severe (such as requiring the need 
     to use assistive devices for ambulation, use of opioid or 
     similar prescription medication to control pain which 
     precludes driving or being around machinery, in-patient 
     hospitalization or rehabilitation or frequent out-patient 
     treatment physical therapy, or loss or loss of use of 
     functional capacity in both arms or feet, or one arm and one 
     foot, or requiring a wheelchair for mobility).

       (iii) Duration of symptoms affecting residual functional 
     capacity of the musculoskeletal system resulting in reduced 
     functional capacity of the musculoskeletal system, set forth 
     as a range of--

       (I) one day or less to one week;
       (II) more than one week but less than four weeks;
       (III) four weeks or more but less than six months;
       (IV) six months or more but less than one year; and
       (V) one year or more.

       (D) Mechanisms for the assignment of ratings of disability 
     in certain cases as follows:
       (i) If the veteran has an active musculoskeletal cancer or 
     other active musculoskeletal disability likely to result in 
     death, a rating of 100 percent.
       (ii) If the veteran would qualify for a temporary 
     disability rating under section 1156 of title 38, United 
     States Code, the rating provided under that section.
       (iii) If the veteran would qualify for a temporary 
     disability rating under any regulations prescribed by the 
     Secretary not provided for under this section, the rating 
     assigned under such regulations.
       (E) Such other mechanisms as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate for the pilot program.
       (5) Forms for recording residual functional capacity 
     assessments.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish one or more 
     functional capacity assessment forms to be used in performing 
     assessments with the instrument required by paragraph (4)(B).
       (B) Availability.--The Secretary shall make the forms 
     established under subparagraph (A) available to the public in 
     an electronic format for use by any physician or other 
     medical provider in assessing the residual functional 
     capacity related to disabilities of the musculoskeletal 
     system.
       (6) Exemption from apa.--The establishment of the 
     alternative schedule required by paragraph (1) shall not be 
     subject to the requirements of subchapter II of chapter 5, 
     and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known 
     as the ``Administrative Procedure Act'').
       (c) Application of Alternative Schedule.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the pilot program, the 
     Secretary shall apply the alternative schedule for rating 
     disabilities established under subsection (b) to veterans 
     described in paragraph (3) who have a condition of the 
     musculoskeletal system that has been determined to be a 
     disability incurred or aggravated during military service to 
     determine the rating to be assigned for such disability.
       (2) Application through regional offices.--
       (A) In general.--The Secretary shall apply the alternative 
     schedule for rating service-connected disabilities under this 
     subsection through not fewer than six and not more than ten 
     regional offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
     selected by the Secretary for purposes of the pilot program.
       (B) Diversity of selection.--In selecting regional offices 
     under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall select--
       (i) at least one regional office considered by the 
     Secretary to be a small office;
       (ii) at least one regional office considered by the 
     Secretary to be a large office; and
       (iii) regional offices representing a variety of geographic 
     settings.
       (3) Covered veterans.--Veterans described in this paragraph 
     are veterans who--
       (A) submit to the Secretary more than one year after their 
     date of discharge or release

[[Page 11320]]

     from the active military, naval, or air service an original 
     claim for benefits under the laws administered by the 
     Secretary;
       (B) allege in the claim described in subparagraph (A) the 
     existence of a condition of the musculoskeletal system that 
     was incurred or aggravated in such military, naval, or air 
     service;
       (C) file such claim with a regional office of the 
     Department with original jurisdiction of the claim that is 
     participating in the pilot program; and
       (D) have not expressly declined participation in the pilot 
     program.
       (4) Relation to combined ratings table.--A rating assigned 
     for a musculoskeletal service-connected disability under the 
     pilot program shall be determined without regard to the 
     Combined Ratings Table in title 38, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, except that in determining the final rating of 
     all service-connected disabilities, the rating for 
     musculoskeletal disabilities as determined under the pilot 
     program shall be combined with any other disabilities using 
     such table.
       (5) Treatment of disability ratings for loss of bodily 
     integrity.--Compensation under laws administered by the 
     Secretary for a disability receiving a disability rating 
     under the schedule established under subsection (b)(1) shall 
     be, as applicable, in addition to or consistent with any 
     compensation otherwise provided under subsections (k) through 
     (s) of section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
       (d) Limitations on Denial of Service Connection.--During 
     the pilot program, the Secretary may not determine a 
     musculoskeletal condition of a veteran to be not service-
     connected for purposes of the veteran's participation in the 
     pilot program unless the Secretary--
       (1) obtains, or receives a report of, a medical examination 
     of the veteran which--
       (A) includes a brief history of the veteran's military 
     service relevant to the condition;
       (B) identifies the diagnosed musculoskeletal disabilities 
     in accordance with the classification required by subsection 
     (b)(4)(A); and
       (C) describes the functional limitations of such 
     conditions, and if applicable, any secondary conditions 
     related to such alleged conditions or any non-service 
     connected disability aggravated by the alleged conditions; 
     and
       (2) obtains or receives a medical opinion on--
       (A) the nexus between any diagnosed musculoskeletal 
     condition alleged to be service-connected and the active 
     military, naval, or air service of the veteran; and
       (B) if applicable, the relationship between any service-
     connected disabilities of the veteran and any secondary 
     disabilities related to such disabilities or any non-service 
     connected disability aggravated by the alleged conditions.
       (e) Records.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain for purposes 
     of the pilot program a separate searchable electronic file on 
     each veteran covered by the pilot program.
       (2) Elements.--The electronic file maintained with respect 
     to a veteran under paragraph (1) shall include for the 
     following:
       (A) An index of the documents contained in the electronic 
     file.
       (B) The claim of the veteran for benefits under the laws 
     administered by the Secretary, including any reapplication 
     with respect to such claim.
       (C) The service treatment records of the veteran from 
     medical care received while serving in the active military, 
     naval, or air service and any other medical treatment records 
     of the veteran from service during periods of active or 
     inactive duty for training.
       (D) The personnel records of service of the veteran--
       (i) in the active military, naval, or air service; and
       (ii) in the reserve components of the Armed Forces.
       (E) Such other private or public medical records of the 
     veteran as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (F) Records of any medical examinations and medical 
     opinions on the residual functional capacity of the 
     musculoskeletal system of the veteran, including any 
     examinations and opinions obtained under subsection (d).
       (G) Records of any medical examinations and medical 
     opinions concerning any non-musculoskeletal disabilities 
     claimed by the veteran as service-connected.
       (H) Any non-medical evidence applicable to the claim.
       (I) Current information and evidence on any dependents of 
     the veteran for purposes of the laws administered by the 
     Secretary.
       (J) Ratings and decisions of the Secretary with respect to 
     the claims of the veteran.
       (K) Information concerning the amount of compensation paid 
     to the veteran under laws administered by the Secretary.
       (L) Any notices or correspondence sent by the Secretary to 
     the veteran or any correspondence submitted by the veteran to 
     the Secretary in connection with the claim that does not 
     contain evidence or information applicable to the claims of 
     the veteran.
       (3) Organization.--Each file required by paragraph (1) 
     shall be stored or displayed with separate sections for each 
     element required under paragraph (2).
       (f) Termination of Application.--The Secretary shall cease 
     the application to veterans under subsection (c) of the 
     alternative schedule for rating service-connected 
     disabilities under subsection (b) for purposes of the pilot 
     program on the date that is 4 years after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (g) Preservation of Ratings.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     disability rating assigned under the alternative schedule 
     established under subsection (b) shall not be reduced during 
     or after termination of the pilot program absent evidence of 
     clear and unmistakable error in the original assignment of 
     the rating or evidence of an improvement in the 
     musculoskeletal disability manifested by less frequent, less 
     severe, or shorter duration of symptoms measured over a 
     period of at least six months in the year prior to any re-
     evaluation.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to ratings 
     assigned for temporary periods as provided in subsection 
     (b)(4)(D).
       (h) Relationship to Other Provisions of Law Administered by 
     the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.--Except as otherwise 
     specifically provided in this section, all applicable 
     provisions of law administered by the Secretary shall apply 
     to decisions of the Secretary made under the pilot program.
       (i) Interim Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 300 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives an interim report on the pilot program.
       (2) Elements.--The interim report required by paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       (A) A description of the alternative schedule for rating 
     service-connected disabilities established under subsection 
     (b).
       (B) The rationale for the alternative schedule as described 
     under subparagraph (A).
       (C) A description of the policies and procedures 
     established under the pilot program.
       (j) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 3 years and 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the pilot program.
       (2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall 
     include the following:
       (A) A copy of the alternative schedule for rating service-
     connected disabilities established under subsection (b) and 
     any changes made to such schedule during the pilot program.
       (B) A description and assessment of the application of the 
     alternative schedule for rating service-connected 
     disabilities of veterans, including--
       (i) the total number of veterans to which the alternative 
     schedule was applied;
       (ii) the total number of veterans determined to have a 
     service-connected disability consisting of a condition of the 
     musculoskeletal system; and
       (iii) the ratings of disability assigned to veterans 
     described in clause (ii), set forth by percentage of 
     disability assigned.
       (C) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of 
     applying the alternative schedule for rating service-
     connected disabilities to additional claimants.
       (D) A comparison of a representative sample of decisions 
     rendered by different regional offices for similar 
     disabilities participating in the pilot program.
       (E) The number of appeals filed for claims adjudicated 
     under the pilot program.
       (F) An assessment of the effectiveness of the electronic 
     file maintained under subsection (e) in--
       (i) the adjudication of claims under the pilot program; and
       (ii) improving the efficiency of decision making by the 
     Department.
       (G) Such recommendations for legislative or administrative 
     action as the Secretary considers appropriate in light of the 
     pilot program.
       (k) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``active military, naval, or air service'' has 
     the meaning given that term in section 101(24) of title 38, 
     United States Code.
       (2) The term ``non-service-connected'', with respect to a 
     disability, has the meaning given that term in section 
     101(17) of title 38, United States Code.
       (3) The term ``service-connected'', with respect to a 
     disability, has the meaning given that term in section 
     101(16) of title 38, United States Code.

               TITLE II--ADJUDICATION AND APPEAL MATTERS

     SEC. 201. PARTIAL ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY 
                   COMPENSATION CONSISTING OF MULTIPLE ISSUES ONE 
                   OR MORE OF WHICH CAN BE QUICKLY ADJUDICATED.

       (a) In General.--Section 1157 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

[[Page 11321]]

       ``(b) Assignment of Partial Ratings.--(1) In the case of a 
     veteran who submits to the Secretary a claim for compensation 
     under this chapter for more than one condition and the 
     Secretary determines that a disability rating can be assigned 
     without further development for one or more conditions but 
     not all conditions in the claim, the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) expeditiously assign a disability rating for the 
     condition or conditions that the Secretary determined could 
     be assigned without further development; and
       ``(B) continue development of the remaining conditions.
       ``(2) If the Secretary is able to assign a disability 
     rating for a condition described in paragraph (1)(B) with 
     respect to a claim, the Secretary shall assign such rating 
     and combine such rating with the rating or ratings previously 
     assigned under paragraph (1)(A) with respect to that 
     claim.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply with respect to claims filed on or after the 
     date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 202. CLARIFICATION THAT REQUIREMENT OF SECRETARY OF 
                   VETERANS AFFAIRS TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO CLAIMANTS 
                   OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE REQUIRED 
                   ONLY APPLIES WHEN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR 
                   EVIDENCE IS ACTUALLY REQUIRED.

       (a) In General.--Section 5103(a)(1) of title 38, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence and 
     inserting the following: ``If the Secretary receives a 
     complete or substantially complete application that does not 
     include information or medical or lay evidence not previously 
     provided to the Secretary that is necessary to substantiate 
     the claim, the Secretary shall, upon receipt of such 
     application, notify the claimant and the claimant's 
     representative, if any, that such information or evidence is 
     necessary to substantiate the claim.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply with respect to claims filed on or after the 
     date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 203. EQUAL DEFERENCE TO PRIVATE MEDICAL OPINIONS IN 
                   ASSESSING CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY COMPENSATION.

       (a) Provision of Deference.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 51 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     5103A the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5103B. Treatment of private medical opinions

       ``(a) In General.--If a claimant submits a private medical 
     opinion in support of a claim for disability compensation in 
     accordance with standards established by the Secretary, such 
     opinion shall be treated by the Secretary with the same 
     deference as a medical opinion provided by a Department 
     health care provider.
       ``(b) Supplemental Information.--(1) If a private medical 
     opinion submitted as described in subsection (a) is found by 
     the Secretary to be competent, credible, and probative, but 
     otherwise not entirely adequate for purposes of assigning a 
     disability rating and the Secretary determines a medical 
     opinion from a Department health care provider is necessary 
     for such purpose, the Secretary shall obtain from an 
     appropriate Department health care provider (as determined 
     pursuant to the standards described in subsection (a)) a 
     medical opinion that is adequate for such purposes.
       ``(2) If the Secretary obtains a medical opinion from a 
     Department health care provider under paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall ensure that the medical opinion is obtained 
     from a health care provider of the Department that has 
     professional qualifications that are at least equal to the 
     qualifications of the provider of the private medical opinion 
     described in such paragraph.
       ``(c) Department Health Care Provider Defined.--In this 
     section, the term `Department health care provider' includes 
     a provider of health care who provides health care under 
     contract with the Department.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 51 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 5103A the following new 
     item:

``5103B. Treatment of private medical opinions.''.

       (3) Effective date.--Section 5103B of such title, as added 
     by paragraph (1), shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to claims 
     pending or filed on or after the date that is 270 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Notice.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5103(a) of such title is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) A notice provided under this subsection shall inform 
     a claimant, as the Secretary considers appropriate with 
     respect to the claimant's claim--
       ``(A) of the rights of the claimant to assistance under 
     section 5103A of this title; and
       ``(B) if the claimant submits a private medical opinion in 
     support of a claim for disability compensation, how such 
     medical opinion will be treated under section 5103B of this 
     title.''.
       (2) Effective date.--Paragraph (3) of such section 5103(a), 
     as added by paragraph (1), shall take effect on the date that 
     is 270 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 204. IMPROVEMENTS TO DISABILITY COMPENSATION CLAIM 
                   REVIEW PROCESS.

       (a) Establishment of Fast Track Claim Review Process.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter I of chapter 51 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     5103B, as added by section 203 of this Act, the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 5103C. Expedited review of initial claims for 
       disability compensation

       ``(a) Process Required.--The Secretary shall establish a 
     process for the rapid identification of initial claims for 
     disability compensation that should, in the adjudication of 
     such claims, receive priority in the order of review.
       ``(b) Review of Initial Claims.--As part of the process 
     required by subsection (a), the Secretary shall assign 
     employees of the Department who are experienced in the 
     processing of claims for disability compensation to carry out 
     a preliminary review of all initial claims for disability 
     compensation submitted to the Secretary in order to identify 
     whether--
       ``(1) the claims have the potential of being adjudicated 
     quickly;
       ``(2) the claims qualify for priority treatment under 
     paragraph (2) of subsection (c); and
       ``(3) a temporary disability rating could be assigned with 
     respect to the claims under section 1156 of this title.
       ``(c) Priority in Adjudication of Initial Claims.--(1) As 
     part of the process required by subsection (a) and except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, in the 
     adjudication of initial claims for disability compensation 
     submitted to the Secretary, give priority in the order of 
     review of such claims to claims identified under subsection 
     (b)(1) as having the potential of being adjudicated quickly.
       ``(2) The Secretary may, under regulations the Secretary 
     shall prescribe, provide priority in the order of review of 
     initial claims for disability compensation for the 
     adjudication of the following:
       ``(A) Initial claims for disability compensation submitted 
     by homeless claimants.
       ``(B) Initial claims for disability compensation submitted 
     by veterans who are terminally ill.
       ``(C) Initial claims for disability compensation submitted 
     by claimants suffering severe financial hardship.
       ``(D) Partially adjudicated claims for disability 
     compensation under section 1157(b) of this title.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 51 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 5103B, as so added, the 
     following new item:

``5103C. Expedited review of initial claims for disability 
              compensation.''.

       (3) Effective date.--Section 5103C of such title, as added 
     by paragraph (1), shall take effect on the date that is 90 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Authority for Claimants to End Development of Claims.--
       (1) In general.--Such subchapter is further amended by 
     inserting after section 5103C, as added by subsection (a), 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 5103D. Procedures for fully developed claims

       ``Upon notification received from a claimant that the 
     claimant has no additional information or evidence to submit, 
     the Secretary may determine that the claim is a fully 
     developed claim. The Secretary shall then undertake any 
     development necessary for any Federal records, medical 
     examinations, or opinions relevant to the claim and may 
     decide the claim based on all the evidence of record.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 51 of such title is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 5103C, as added by 
     subsection (a), the following new item:

``5103D. Procedures for fully developed claims.''.

       (3) Effective date.--Section 5103D of such title, as added 
     by paragraph (1), shall take effect on the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 205. PROVISION BY SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OF 
                   NOTICE OF DISAGREEMENT FORMS TO INITIATE 
                   APPELLATE REVIEW WITH NOTICES OF DECISIONS OF 
                   DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) In General.--Section 5104 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), by striking the second sentence; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``also include (1) a'' 
     and all that follows and inserting the following: ``include 
     the following:
       ``(1) A statement of the reasons for the decision.
       ``(2) A summary of the evidence relied upon by the 
     Secretary in making the decision.

[[Page 11322]]

       ``(3) An explanation of the procedure for obtaining review 
     of the decision.
       ``(4) A form that, once completed, can serve as a notice of 
     disagreement under section 7105(a) of this title.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 206. MODIFICATION OF FILING PERIOD FOR NOTICE OF 
                   DISAGREEMENT TO INITIATE APPELLATE REVIEW OF 
                   DECISIONS OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Filing of Notice of Disagreement by Claimants.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 7105(b) of title 
     38, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``180 days'' in 
     the first sentence; and
       (B) by striking ``one-year'' and inserting ``180-day'' in 
     the third sentence.
       (2) Electronic filing.--Such paragraph is further amended 
     by inserting ``or transmitted by electronic means'' after 
     ``postmarked''.
       (3) Good cause exception for untimely filing of notices of 
     disagreement.--Such section 7105(b) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3)(A) A notice of disagreement not filed within the time 
     prescribed by paragraph (1) shall be treated by the Secretary 
     as timely filed if--
       ``(i) the Secretary determines that the claimant, legal 
     guardian, or other accredited representative, attorney, or 
     authorized agent filing the notice had good cause for the 
     lack of filing within such time; and
       ``(ii) the notice of disagreement is filed not later than 
     186 days after the period prescribed by paragraph (1).
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, good cause shall 
     include the following:
       ``(i) Circumstances relating to any physical, mental, 
     educational, or linguistic limitation of the claimant, legal 
     guardian, representative, attorney, or authorized agent 
     concerned (including lack of facility with the English 
     language).
       ``(ii) Circumstances relating to significant delay in the 
     delivery of the initial decision or of the notice of 
     disagreement caused by natural disaster or factors relating 
     to geographic location.
       ``(iii) A change in financial circumstances, including the 
     payment of medical expenses or other changes in income or net 
     worth that are considered in determining eligibility for 
     benefits and services on an annualized basis for purposes of 
     needs-based benefits under chapters 15 and 17 of this 
     title.''.
       (b) Application by Department for Review on Appeal.--
     Section 7106 of such title is amended in the first sentence 
     by striking ``one-year period described in section 7105'' and 
     inserting ``period described in section 7105(b)(1)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to 
     claims filed on or after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 207. MODIFICATION OF SUBSTANTIVE APPEAL PROCESS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7105 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``The claimant will be 
     afforded'' and all that follows through the end of the 
     paragraph; and
       (B) by striking paragraphs (4) and (5); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(e)(1) A claimant shall be afforded a period of 60 days 
     from the date the post-notice of disagreement decision is 
     mailed under subsection (d) to file a substantive appeal.
       ``(2)(A) The period under paragraph (1) may be extended for 
     an additional 60 days for good cause shown on a request for 
     such extension submitted in writing within such period.
       ``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, good cause shall 
     include the following:
       ``(i) Circumstances relating to any physical, mental, 
     educational, or linguistic limitation of the claimant, legal 
     guardian, or other accredited representative, attorney, or 
     authorized agent filing the request (including lack of 
     facility with the English language).
       ``(ii) Circumstances relating to significant delay in the 
     delivery of the initial decision or of the notice of 
     disagreement caused by natural disaster or factors relating 
     to geographic location.
       ``(iii) A change in financial circumstances, including the 
     payment of medical expenses or other changes in income or net 
     worth that are considered in determining eligibility for 
     benefits and services on an annualized basis for purposes of 
     needs-based benefits under chapters 15 and 17 of this title.
       ``(3) A substantive appeal under this subsection shall 
     identify the particular determination or determinations being 
     appealed and allege specific errors of fact or law made by 
     the agency of original jurisdiction in each determination 
     being appealed.
       ``(4) A claimant in any case under this subsection may not 
     be presumed to agree with any statement of fact contained in 
     the post-notice of disagreement decision to which the 
     claimant does not specifically express disagreement.
       ``(5) If the claimant does not file a substantive appeal in 
     accordance with the provisions of this chapter within the 
     period afforded under paragraphs (1) and (2), as the case may 
     be, the agency of original jurisdiction shall dismiss the 
     appeal and notify the claimant of the dismissal. The notice 
     shall include an explanation of the procedure for obtaining 
     review of the dismissal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
       ``(6) In order to obtain review by the Board of a dismissal 
     of an appeal by the agency of original jurisdiction, a 
     claimant shall file a request for such review with the Board 
     within the 60-day period beginning on the date on which 
     notice of the dismissal is mailed pursuant to paragraph (5).
       ``(7) If a claimant does not file a request for review by 
     the Board in accordance with paragraph (6) within the 
     prescribed period or if such a request is timely filed and 
     the Board affirms the dismissal of the appeal, the 
     determination of the agency of original jurisdiction 
     regarding the claim for benefits under this title shall 
     become final and the claim may not thereafter be reopened or 
     allowed, except as may otherwise be provided by regulations 
     not inconsistent with this title.
       ``(8) If an appeal is not dismissed by the agency of 
     original jurisdiction, the Board may nonetheless dismiss any 
     appeal which is--
       ``(A) untimely; or
       ``(B) fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the 
     determination being appealed.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     and shall apply with respect to claims filed on or after the 
     date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

     SEC. 208. PROVISION OF POST-NOTICE OF DISAGREEMENT DECISIONS 
                   TO CLAIMANTS WHO FILE NOTICE OF DISAGREEMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7105 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``statement of the case'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``post-notice of disagreement 
     decision''; and
       (2) in subsection (d), as amended by section 207 of this 
     Act--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking subparagraphs (A) through 
     (C) and inserting the following new subparagraphs:
       ``(A) A description of the specific facts in the case that 
     support the agency's decision, including, if applicable, an 
     assessment as to the credibility of any lay evidence 
     pertinent to the issue or issues with which disagreement has 
     been expressed.
       ``(B) A citation to pertinent laws and regulations that 
     support the agency's decision.
       ``(C) A statement that addresses each issue and provides 
     the reasons why the evidence relied upon supports the 
     conclusions of the agency under the specific laws and 
     regulations applied.
       ``(D) The date by which a substantive appeal must be filed 
     in order to obtain further review of the decision.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) The post-notice of disagreement decision shall be 
     written in plain language.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 7105A of such title is 
     amended by striking ``statement of the case'' each place it 
     appears and inserting ``post-notice of disagreement 
     decision''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to 
     notices of disagreements filed on or after the date that is 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 209. AUTOMATIC WAIVER OF AGENCY OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION 
                   REVIEW OF NEW EVIDENCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 7105 of title 38, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 207 of this Act, is further 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) If, either at the time or after the agency of 
     original jurisdiction receives a substantive appeal, the 
     claimant or the claimant's representative, if any, submits 
     evidence to either the agency of original jurisdiction or the 
     Board of Veterans' Appeals for consideration in connection 
     with the issue or issues with which disagreement has been 
     expressed, such evidence shall be subject to initial review 
     by the Board unless the claimant or the claimant's 
     representative, as the case may be, requests in writing that 
     the agency of original jurisdiction initially review such 
     evidence. Such request for review shall accompany the 
     submittal of the evidence or be made within 30 days of the 
     submittal.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Subsection (f) of such section, as 
     added by subsection (a), shall take effect on the date that 
     is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and 
     shall apply with respect to claims for which a substantive 
     appeal is filed on or after the date that is 180 days after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 210. AUTHORITY FOR BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS TO 
                   DETERMINE LOCATION AND MANNER OF APPEARANCE FOR 
                   HEARINGS.

       (a) Location.--Subsection (d) of section 7107 of title 38, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``An appellant'' and all 
     that follows through the end

[[Page 11323]]

     and inserting the following: ``Upon request by an appellant 
     for a hearing before the Board, the Board shall determine 
     whether the hearing will be held at its principal location or 
     at a facility of the Department, or other appropriate Federal 
     facility, located within the area served by a regional office 
     of the Department as the Secretary considers most appropriate 
     to schedule the earliest possible date for the hearing.''; 
     and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) A determination by the Board under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to the location of a hearing shall be final unless 
     the appellant demonstrates, on motion, good cause or special 
     circumstances warranting a different location.''.
       (b) Manner of Appearance.--Subsection (e) of such section 
     is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) by striking ``afford the appellant an opportunity'' and 
     inserting ``, as the Chairman determines appropriate, require 
     the appellant''; and
       (B) by striking the last sentence; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) A determination by the Chairman under paragraph (2) 
     with respect to the participation of an appellant in a 
     hearing shall be final unless the appellant demonstrates, on 
     motion, good cause or special circumstances warranting a 
     different determination.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to 
     requests for hearings filed on or after the date that is 180 
     days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 211. DECISION BY COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS ON 
                   ALL ISSUES RAISED BY APPELLANTS.

       Section 7261 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a), in the matter before paragraph (1), 
     by striking ``, to the extent necessary to its decision and 
     when presented, shall'' and inserting ``shall, when 
     presented'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new 
     subsection (c):
       ``(c) In carrying out a review of a decision of the Board 
     of Veterans' Appeals, the Court shall render a decision on 
     every issue raised by an appellant within the extent set 
     forth in this section.''.

     SEC. 212. GOOD CAUSE EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR FILING NOTICE OF 
                   APPEAL WITH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
                   VETERANS CLAIMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7266 of title 38, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively;
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new 
     subsection (b):
       ``(b)(1) The Court may extend the initial period for the 
     filing of a notice of appeal set forth in subsection (a) for 
     an additional period not to exceed 120 days from the 
     expiration of such initial period upon a motion--
       ``(A) filed with the Court not later than 120 days after 
     the expiration of such initial period; and
       ``(B) showing good cause for such extension.
       ``(2) If a motion for extension under paragraph (1) is 
     filed after expiration of the initial period for the filing 
     of a notice of appeal set forth in subsection (a), the notice 
     of appeal shall be filed concurrently with, or prior to, the 
     filing of the motion.''; and
       (3) in subsection (e), as redesignated by paragraph (1), by 
     striking ``subsection (c)(2)'' and inserting ``subsection 
     (d)(2)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act 
     and shall apply with respect to notices of appeal filed on or 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 213. PILOT PROGRAM ON PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL AND TRIBAL 
                   GOVERNMENTS IN IMPROVING QUALITY OF CLAIMS FOR 
                   DISABILITY COMPENSATION SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT 
                   OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       (a) Pilot Program Required.--The Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs shall carry out a pilot program to assess the 
     feasibility and advisability of entering into memorandums of 
     understanding with local governments and tribal 
     organizations--
       (1) to improve the quality of claims submitted to the 
     Secretary for compensation under chapter 11 of title 38, 
     United States Code; and
       (2) to provide assistance to veterans who may be eligible 
     for such compensation in submitting such claims .
       (b) Minimum Number of Participating Tribal Organizations.--
     In carrying out the pilot program required by subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall enter into memorandums of understanding 
     with at least two tribal organizations.
       (c) Tribal Organization Defined.--In this section, the term 
     ``tribal organization'' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 3765 of title 38, United States Code.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Specter, Mr. 
        Schumer, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 3518. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit 
recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in United 
States Courts where those judgments undermine the first amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States, and to provide a cause of action 
for declaratory judgment relief against a party who has brought a 
successful foreign defamation action whose judgment undermines the 
first amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, two years ago the United Nations' Human 
Rights Committee observed a problem that ``discourage[d] critical media 
reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affect[ed] 
the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work,'' and 
``affect[ed] freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public 
interest.'' That problem was ``libel tourism,'' a troubling trend of 
foreign lawsuits that have stifled Americans' First Amendment rights. 
Today, I am introducing legislation to put a stop to this harmful 
trend.
  The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy. Freedom 
of speech and the press enable vigorous debate over issues of national 
importance, and enable an exchange of ideas that shapes our political 
process. Authors, reporters and publishers are primary sources of this 
information, and their ability to disseminate their writings is 
critical to our democracy.
  Over recent years, American authors, reporters and publishers have 
fallen victim to libel lawsuits in countries with significantly weaker 
free speech protections that what our First Amendment affords. In many 
cases, the foreign plaintiff sought out that country, where there is no 
regard for freedom of the press, so that they could easily prevail. 
These suits occur regardless of whether the plaintiff or the 
publication has significant connections to the foreign forum. On a 
broad scale, this results in a race to the bottom, and causes U.S. 
persons to defer to the country with the most chilling and restrictive 
free speech standard, to determine what they can or cannot write or 
publish. This is libel tourism. As the son of a printer, I consider 
this a matter of great national importance.
  Today, I am introducing with Senators Sessions, Specter, Schumer and 
Lieberman legislation that will ensure American authors, journalists 
and publishers are shielded from the chilling effects of libel tourism. 
This legislation guarantees that a foreign defamation judgment cannot 
be enforced in the United States if that country's libel standards are 
inconsistent with American law. Our legislation also provides American 
victims of unconstitutional libel suits the opportunity to clear their 
name by filing for a declaratory judgment in an American court.
  Over the past several years, the problem of libel tourism has grown. 
Today, countries whose weak libel laws impact American authors are no 
longer confined to a small number. England, Brazil, Australia, 
Indonesia, and Singapore are just a few of the countries whose weak 
libel protections have attracted libel lawsuits against American 
journalists and authors. This threat to American free speech must end, 
and the time to act is now.
  New accounts of libel tourism lawsuits emerge every day. This is 
because the dissemination of materials through the Internet, as well as 
the increased number of worldwide newspapers and periodicals, has 
compounded their threat. The likelihood that a book or story will have 
some contact with a foreign country is simply that much higher, as is 
the probability that a foreign court will determine that it has a basis 
for asserting jurisdiction over an American author or publisher. As we 
heard at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, this has a dramatic 
chilling effect on Americans' free speech.
  The impact and extreme nature of these foreign libel lawsuits is best 
understood through examples. The most well known is the case of 
American journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a book about the 
financiers of the 9/11 attacks. She did not market her book in England 
yet was sued for libel there by a Saudi businessman she linked to

[[Page 11324]]

terrorism. The content of her publication would have been protected 
under our laws, but a British court applying its laws issued a 
multimillion dollar default judgment against her. Today, Ms. Ehrenfeld 
continues to experience reluctance from American publishers who fear 
that plaintiffs will target her and bring another libel action against 
anything she writes on the subject of terrorism financing.
  The scientific community has also been affected by libel tourism. An 
article last year in New Scientist magazine notes that now 
``Challenging the scientific validity of a product or claim can be 
fraught with danger. . . [because] such challenges are leaving 
scientists and science writers [to] fac[e] an expensive libel action 
before the English high court. Many individuals and publications have 
been threatened with libel actions, and some have had proceedings 
launched against them. Many more writers have had their work edited 
before publication to avoid any risk of such legal action.'' 
Publications exposing financial improprieties, consumer protection 
issues, medical malpractice, and sexual abuse have all fallen victim to 
libel tourism lawsuits around the world.
  Even Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair for libel in England. Mr. 
Polanski, a fugitive from justice who fled America after being 
convicted of sexually abusing a young girl, filed the suit in 2004. He 
has fought extradition while living in Europe. The Vanity Fair article 
recounted a story of his alleged aggressive sexual advances made just 
after his wife was murdered, and portrayed him as being insensitive to 
her death. The article was written in the U.S., edited in the U.S., and 
primarily sold in the U.S., but the British court claimed jurisdiction, 
and ruled in favor of Mr. Polanski.
  Foreign libel judgments impact American authors' livelihood, 
credibility and employment potential. They also have the potential to 
limit the types of books and articles that talented and reputable 
authors can get published in the future. But most importantly, their 
suppression limits the information that Americans have a constitutional 
right to access. Journalists writing about issues of national security 
and safety should not be chilled. These lawsuits are designed to stifle 
the dissemination of that information in both the United States and the 
world. Journalists willing to investigate and write about such 
important issues deserve protection.
  I am encouraged that some countries have taken steps to strengthen 
their libel protections and jurisdictional requirements in the wake of 
these lawsuits, but that is not enough. As one country tightens its 
libel protections, another may just emerge as the next-best-available 
forum of choice for libel plaintiffs willing to travel to file suit.
  I want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, 
Senator Sessions, for working with me on this legislation. I also want 
to thank Senators Schumer and Specter, for their support in moving 
toward a legislative compromise on this important issue. Their bills 
provided a valuable basis from which the bipartisan compromise that we 
are introducing today emerged.
  We cannot legislate changes to foreign law that are chilling 
protected speech in our country. What we can do, however, is ensure 
that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments 
that undermine our First Amendment or due process rights. We can also 
provide American authors and reporters the ability to clear their name 
in our courts.
  I hope all Senators will support our bipartisan effort to pass this 
important legislation this summer to protect the free speech rights of 
all Americans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 3519. A bill to stabilize the matching requirement for 
participants in the Hollings Manufacturing Partnership Program; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along 
with Senators Kohl and Lieberman, to reduce the cost share amount that 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, centers face in obtaining 
their annual funding. The MEP is a nationwide public-private network of 
counseling and assistance centers that offer our nation's nearly 
350,000 small and medium manufacturers services and access to resources 
that enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. In 
Fiscal Year 2009 alone, MEP clients created or retained roughly 53,000 
jobs; provided cost savings in excess of $1.41 billion; and generated 
over $9.1 billion in sales. Similarly, clients of the Maine MEP 
reported saving or retaining 550 jobs, experiencing $8.3 million in 
cost savings, and generating over $78.3 million in sales in 2009. As 
such, the MEP's contribution to the health of American manufacturing is 
indisputable.
  At present, individual MEP centers must raise a full 2/3 of their 
funding after their fourth year of operation, placing a heavy burden on 
these centers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
NIST, at the Department of Commerce, in turn, provides one-third of the 
centers' funding. MEP centers can meet their portion of the cost share 
requirement through funds from universities, State and local 
governments, and other institutions.
  In today's tumultuous economy, these centers are experiencing 
increased difficulties finding adequate funding from both private and 
public sources. As economic concerns weigh down on all of us, states, 
organizations, and groups that traditionally assist MEP centers in 
meeting this cost share are reluctant to expend the money--or do not 
have the resources to do so.
  Our bill, which is a modified version of S. 695 that I and several of 
my colleagues introduced last March, is simple and straightforward. It 
would reduce the statutory cost share that MEP centers face to 50 
percent for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 as a temporary stimulative 
measure. Frankly, the Nation's MEP centers are subject to an 
unnecessarily restrictive cost share requirement. And it is 
inequitable, as the MEP is the only initiative out of the 80 programs 
funded by the Department of Commerce that is subject to a statutory 
cost share of greater than 50 percent. There is no reason for this to 
persist, particularly not during this trying economy when so many 
manufacturers are trying to remain afloat.
  Clearly, Congress must act swiftly to bolster our country's 
manufacturing industry rather than sitting on the sidelines as other 
countries surpass our nation's economic leadership in a variety of 
areas. Indeed, last Sunday's Financial Times included an article titled 
``US manufacturing crown slips'' highlighting that, ``The U.S. remained 
the world's biggest manufacturing nation by output last year, but is 
poised to relinquish this slot in 2011 to China--thus ending a 110-year 
run as the number one country in factory production.'' This news should 
be a clarion call that investing in the manufacturing sector is 
critical given the detrimental ramifications that losing our leadership 
would have to our overall economy.
  The MEP is an essential resource for the small and medium 
manufacturers that will help reinvigorate our Nation's economy. With 
centers in all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, its reach is 
unmatched and its experience in counseling manufacturers is unrivaled. 
It is my hope that my colleagues will support this legislation as a 
direct way to bolster an industry that is indispensible to our nation's 
economy health.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 3521. A bill to provide for the reestablishment of a domestic rare 
earths materials production and supply industry in the United States, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
in the Senate to help the United States minerals industry resume 
production of rare earths in this country. These metals are 
increasingly important to our military, strategic, and economic 
priorities due to their use in clean energy technologies and many other 
high-tech applications.

[[Page 11325]]

  For many years the United States was a leader in the mining and 
processing of rare earths--a group of 17 elements that, while 
widespread in nature, are difficult to find in concentration, extract 
from the earth, and process for commercial use. Rare earths are 
increasingly vital to a host of modern defense technologies, from radar 
and sonar systems to weapons systems and advanced lasers. They are 
essential to the production of clean energy technologies, including 
advanced batteries, electric motors, high-efficiency light bulbs, solar 
panels, and wind turbines.
  The U.S. is estimated to contain 15 percent of the world's rare earth 
reserves, but with the closure of the nation's only operating rare 
earth mine at Mountain Pass, CA, America has become dependent upon 
China for imports of nearly all rare earths, oxides, and alloys. In 
fact, China now produces 97 percent of the world's rare earth supply.
  More importantly, China recently moved to implement rules announced 
in March that will cut production and exportation of rare earths in an 
effort to raise world prices for the minerals. While the world demand 
for rare earths tripled to 120,000 tons per year over the past decade, 
China announced on June 2nd that it will stop issuing new domestic 
licenses for rare earth production and cap production at 89,200 tons 
for this year. As a result, only 35,000 tons of rare earths will be 
exported annually over the next five years, on average.
  These actions may work out well for China, but they will harm the 
United States. Fortunately, we can do something about it. Rather than 
sit on our hands while China corners the market on these strategic 
minerals, we can and should pursue timely production of the rare earth 
supplies that exist within our own borders.
  Efforts are currently underway to reopen Molycorp Minerals' 
California mine and Ucore Uranium is continuing exploration of a large 
rare earth deposit found near Bokan Mountain in Alaska, about 37 miles 
from Ketchikan. Ucore's new Alaska subsidiary, Rare Earth One LLC, has 
been working to study the deposit on Dotson Ridge at Bokan Mountain 
since 2007. The U.S. Bureau of Mines more than 20 years ago estimated 
the site contains at least 374 million pounds of recoverable rare 
earths, which is more than enough to break China's stranglehold on the 
market and protect America's access to the rare earths that are vital 
to the production of cutting-edge technologies in this country.
  So what should we be doing to reestablish domestic rare earth? My 
answer is a companion measure to legislation introduced earlier this 
spring in the House by Rep. Mike Coffman, a fellow Republican from 
Colorado. My bill would establish it as the policy of the United States 
to take appropriate actions to increase investment in, exploration for, 
and development of domestic rare earths. To do that it would require--
under the leadership of the Secretary of the Interior--the Secretaries 
of Energy, Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and State along with the 
Director of OMB and the Chairman of CEQ to expedite permitting, review 
supply chains, and consider strategic stockpiling of rare earths. The 
bill would also provide the rare earth industry with access to federal 
loan guarantee programs meant to advance clean energy technologies.
  There is a great deal of emphasis on the need for expansion of clean 
energy manufacturing in the United States. Promises of ``green jobs'' 
abound, but they will only be realized if American industries have 
access to the raw materials needed to produce these new technologies. 
This legislation represents an important first step in our efforts to 
grow domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies. The bill will 
also help to create more jobs in America's minerals industry, where 
firms provide good, high-wage jobs and pay taxes that will help to 
reduce our deficit. Furthermore, decreasing our reliance on foreign 
minerals will reduce our balance of payments deficit and strengthen 
national security.
  I hope this bill advances quickly, and I encourage my colleagues to 
join as cosponsors of the measure. We have an ambitious agenda given 
the small amount of time that remains in the current Congress, but 
there is too much at stake for our military strength and our clean 
energy goals to ignore the problems we have in accessing affordable and 
secure supplies of rare earths.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Menendez, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 3522. A bill to protect children affected by immigration 
enforcement actions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, on December 12, 2006, Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement staged raids on Swift & Company meatpacking plants 
in six states--Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and my home State 
of Minnesota.
  Over 1,500 unauthorized immigrants were arrested in these raids. They 
also left countless children--most of them citizens and legal 
residents--without their parents and with no way of finding them. One 
second-grader in Worthington, MN--a U.S. citizen--came home that 
Tuesday night to find his 2-year-old brother alone and his mother and 
father missing.
  For the next week, this boy stayed at home caring for his 2-year-old 
brother while his grandmother traveled to Worthington to care for her 
grandchildren.
  On June 22, 2007, ICE agents staged another raid, this one in the 
Jackson Heights Manufactured Home Park in Shakopee, MN. Early that 
Friday morning, around 6 a.m., Federal agents seized a husband and his 
wife for suspected immigration violations. Somehow, they didn't even 
notice their daughter, who was sleeping. So later that morning, that 7-
year-old girl was found wandering the park, looking for her parents.
  Stories like these happen every day. They are happening to innocent 
children, most of them United States citizens. Children who have 
committed no crime, who have hurt no one, but who have had their lives 
torn apart because of the sins of their parents.
  According to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, over 100,000 
parents of U.S. citizen children were deported in the past 10 years. 
Four million U.S. citizen children in our country have at least one 
undocumented immigrant parent. Forty thousand of those children live in 
Minnesota.
  Our country is not doing enough to protect these innocent kids. That 
is why Senator Kohl and I have crafted a bill to fix that.
  So I am proud to stand today with Senators Kohl, Menendez, Klobuchar, 
Feingold, Durbin and Feinstein to introduce the Humane Enforcement and 
Legal Protections for Separated Children Act, or the HELP Separated 
Children Act. This is a simple but strong bill to protect our Nation's 
kids from unnecessary harm from immigration enforcement actions.
  I want to take a few moments to talk about what this bill does--the 
problems it solves, and how it solves them.
  But before I do that, I want to take a second to talk about what this 
bill does not do. This bill is strictly about protecting children. It 
doesn't change our laws on immigrant admission, exclusion, or removal. 
No one is going to get in or stay in this country because of this bill. 
It has nothing to do with so-called amnesty or any decisions about 
deportation.
  So what does this bill actually do?
  This bill fixes four problems in our immigration enforcement system.
  The first problem is notice to State authorities. Invariably, in 
almost all immigration enforcement actions, it is our local communities 
that have to clean up after the government's dirty work.
  It's state and child welfare services that take in kids who have lost 
their mom or dad in a raid. It's local shelters and churches that feed 
those kids--again, most of whom are citizens--when their family 
breadwinner is taken away. And it's local schools that have to take 
care of kids when no one picks them up after soccer practice.
  After the Swift raids, the Bush administration finally understood 
this. And so in 2007, it put in place humanitarian guidelines that call 
upon ICE to

[[Page 11326]]

reach out to state authorities and child welfare services before major 
enforcement actions. Again, that is the Bush administration. President 
Obama expanded these guidelines in 2009 so that they would cover more 
worksite actions.
  But it still isn't enough. Local authorities still don't find out 
about actions until way too late--and when they are notified, they 
aren't given enough time to help. In 2008, after these guidelines were 
put into place, the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department 
testified before the House of Representatives that they still did not 
receive notice of enforcement actions before they happened.
  State authorities in Massachusetts were notified months ahead of a 
raid in New Bedford. But almost immediately after it happened, the 
detainees were transferred to Texas, leaving state agencies unable to 
help. Governor Deval Patrick called it a ``race to the airport.''
  Our bill makes sure that whenever possible, the Governor, local and 
state law enforcement, and child welfare agencies find out about raids 
ahead of time. It also makes sure that schools and community centers 
are notified after these actions so that they too can help.
  That brings me to the second problem. If they want to help, state 
child welfare agencies and community organizations must be allowed to 
help identify detainees who have children at home. Mothers and fathers 
detained in enforcement actions often don't tell ICE agents that they 
have children at home--because they are afraid that ICE will detain 
them, too.
  As Troy Tucker, the sheriff of Clark County, Arkansas said after an 
action there, ICE is ``not doing their job by simply questioning 
[people] and asking them whether they have children and not contacting 
anyone locally.''
  Even though the Bush administration guidelines allow state 
authorities and local non-profits to help screen detainees, this is not 
happening often enough. So our bill requires ICE and State agencies 
enforcing immigration laws to allow these groups to confidentially 
screen detainees and identify those who have kids at home.
  Our bill makes another critical fix in our immigration enforcement 
system. The Bush and ICE detention guidelines require authorities to 
give detainees free emergency phone calls. But again, it isn't being 
done enough, and it isn't being done right.
  In the Swift raid in Worthington, one mother told ICE agents that she 
had kids at home, but still wasn't allowed to call them or let anyone 
know what had happened until later the next day. In Iowa, after a raid 
in Postville, some children went 72 hours without seeing their parents 
or knowing what happened to them.
  Any parent knows how scared kids get just when you come home late. 
Can you imagine how scared they would get if you went missing for a 
whole day? For 3 days? Can you imagine what would happen if they didn't 
know who to call? Can you imagine what would happen if they didn't have 
anything to eat?
  Our bill requires Federal and State authorities to allow parents, 
legal guardians, or primary caregivers to make free phone calls to 
their family, to lawyers, and to child welfare agencies to make sure 
that their kids aren't abandoned.
  Finally, our bill averts one other major problem.
  When a parent is detained, even if their kids know where they are, it 
is still extremely difficult for kids and parents to stay in contact. 
And it is extremely difficult for parents to participate in legal 
proceedings that affect their kids.
  This means that parents can't tell a family court judge about a 
brother or sister or neighbor that could take care of their child. 
Children have actually been adopted by well-meaning families or put 
into foster care because their parents were unable to participate in 
custody proceedings.
  Our bill makes sure that after they're detained, parents can continue 
to have access to phones to call their kids, their lawyers, and family 
courts. Our bill also requires ICE to consider the best interests of 
children in decisions to transfer detainees between facilities, or put 
them into reliable and cost-effective supervised release programs.
  Our immigration system isn't broken. It is in shambles. And while our 
bill doesn't fix 99.9 percent of those problems, it takes a small but 
important step to make sure our kids don't suffer any more than they 
have to already.
  I am proud to say that because this is such a critical, albeit 
narrowly targeted measure, our bill has gained the support of the top 
faith, child welfare, and immigrant advocacy organizations in the 
country.
  I'm also proud to say that it has won the support of faith leaders 
across Minnesota, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Chief Tom Smith of 
the St. Paul Police Department, and countless immigrant advocacy groups 
in the State.
  While immigration may be complicated, protecting our kids isn't. It's 
something we can all agree on.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and 
a list of supporters be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3522

       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 ``Humane Enforcement and Legal 
     Protections for Separated Children Act'' or the ``HELP 
     Separated Children Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Apprehension.--The term ``apprehension'' means the 
     detention, arrest, or custody by officials of the Department 
     of Homeland Security or cooperating entities.
       (2) Child.--The term ``child'' has the meaning given to the 
     term in section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)).
       (3) Child welfare agency.--The term ``child welfare 
     agency'' means the State or local agency responsible for 
     child welfare services under subtitles B and E of title IV of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
       (4) Cooperating entity.--The term ``cooperating entity'' 
     means a State or local entity acting under agreement with, or 
     at the request of, the Department of Homeland Security.
       (5) Detention facility.--The term ``detention facility'' 
     means a Federal, State, or local government facility, or a 
     privately owned and operated facility, that is used to hold 
     individuals suspected or found to be in violation of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
       (6) Immigration enforcement action.--The term ``immigration 
     enforcement action'' means the apprehension of, detention of, 
     or request for or issuance of a detainer for, 1 or more 
     individuals for suspected or confirmed violations of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) by 
     the Department of Homeland Security or cooperating entities.
       (7) Local education agency.--The term ``local education 
     agency'' has the meaning given to the term in section 9101 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7801).
       (8) NGO.--The term ``NGO'' means a nongovernmental 
     organization that provides social services or humanitarian 
     assistance to the immigrant community.

     SEC. 3. APPREHENSION PROCEDURES FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT-
                   RELATED ACTIVITIES.

       (a) Notification.--
       (1) Advance notification.--Subject to paragraph (2), when 
     conducting any immigration enforcement action, the Department 
     of Homeland Security and cooperating entities shall notify 
     the Governor of the State, the local child welfare agency, 
     and relevant State and local law enforcement before 
     commencing the action, or, if advance notification is not 
     possible, immediately after commencing such action, of--
       (A) the approximate number of individuals to be targeted in 
     the immigration enforcement action; and
       (B) the primary language or languages believed to be spoken 
     by individuals at the targeted site.
       (2) Hours of notification.--Whenever possible, advance 
     notification should occur during business hours and allow the 
     notified entities sufficient time to identify resources to 
     conduct the interviews described in subsection (b)(1).
       (3) Other notification.--When conducting any immigration 
     action, the Department of Homeland Security and cooperating 
     entities shall notify the relevant local education agency and 
     local NGOs of the information described in paragraph (1) 
     immediately after commencing the action.

[[Page 11327]]

       (b) Apprehension Procedures.--In any immigration 
     enforcement action, the Department of Homeland Security and 
     cooperating entities shall--
       (1) as soon as possible and not later than 6 hours after an 
     immigration enforcement action, provide licensed social 
     workers or case managers employed or contracted by the child 
     welfare agency or local NGOs with confidential access to 
     screen and interview individuals apprehended in such 
     immigration enforcement action to assist the Department of 
     Homeland Security or cooperating entity in determining if 
     such individuals are parents, legal guardians, or primary 
     caregivers of a child in the United States;
       (2) as soon as possible and not later than 8 hours after an 
     immigration enforcement action, provide any apprehended 
     individual believed to be a parent, legal guardian, or 
     primary caregiver of a child in the United States with--
       (A) free, confidential telephone calls, including calls to 
     child welfare agencies, attorneys, and legal services 
     providers, to arrange for the care of children or wards, 
     unless the Department of Homeland Security has reasonable 
     grounds to believe that providing confidential phone calls to 
     the individual would endanger public safety or national 
     security; and
       (B) contact information for--
       (i) child welfare agencies in all 50 States, the District 
     of Columbia, all United States territories, counties, and 
     local jurisdictions; and
       (ii) attorneys and legal service providers capable of 
     providing free legal advice or free legal representation 
     regarding child welfare, child custody determinations, and 
     immigration matters;
       (3) ensure that personnel of the Department of Homeland 
     Security and cooperating entities do not--
       (A) interview individuals in the immediate presence of 
     children; or
       (B) compel or request children to translate for interviews 
     of other individuals who are encountered as part of an 
     immigration enforcement action; and
       (4) ensure that any parent, legal guardian, or primary 
     caregiver of a child in the United States--
       (A) receives due consideration of the best interests of his 
     or her children or wards in any decision or action relating 
     to his or her detention, release, or transfer between 
     detention facilities; and
       (B) is not transferred from his or her initial detention 
     facility or to the custody of the Department of Homeland 
     Security until the individual--
       (i) has made arrangements for the care of his or her 
     children or wards; or
       (ii) if such arrangements are impossible, is informed of 
     the care arrangements made for the children and of a means to 
     maintain communication with the children.
       (c) Nondisclosure and Retention of Information About 
     Apprehended Individuals and Their Children.--
       (1) In general.--Information collected by child welfare 
     agencies and NGOs in the course of the screenings and 
     interviews described in subsection (b)(1) about an individual 
     apprehended in an immigration enforcement action may not be 
     disclosed to Federal, State, or local government entities or 
     to any person, except pursuant to written authorization from 
     the individual or his or her legal counsel.
       (2) Child welfare agency or ngo recommendation.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a child welfare agency or NGO 
     may--
       (A) submit a recommendation to the Department of Homeland 
     Security or cooperating entities regarding whether an 
     apprehended individual is a parent, legal guardian, or 
     primary caregiver who is eligible for the protections 
     provided under this Act; and
       (B) disclose information that is necessary to protect the 
     safety of the child, to allow for the application of 
     subsection (b)(4)(A), or to prevent reasonably certain death 
     or substantial bodily harm.

     SEC. 4. ACCESS TO CHILDREN, LOCAL AND STATE COURTS, CHILD 
                   WELFARE AGENCIES, AND CONSULAR OFFICIALS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     ensure that all detention facilities operated by or under 
     agreement with the Department of Homeland Security implement 
     procedures to ensure that the best interest of the child, 
     including the best outcome for the family of the child, can 
     be considered in any decision and action relating to the 
     custody of children whose parent, legal guardian, or primary 
     caregiver is detained as the result of an immigration 
     enforcement action.
       (b) Access to Children, State and Local Courts, Child 
     Welfare Agencies, and Consular Officials.--At all detention 
     facilities operated by, or under agreement with, the 
     Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall--
       (1) ensure that individuals who are detained by reason of 
     their immigration status may receive the screenings and 
     interviews described in section 3(b)(1) not later than 6 
     hours after their arrival at the detention facility;
       (2) ensure that individuals who are detained by reason of 
     their immigration status and are believed to be parents, 
     legal guardians, or primary caregivers of children in the 
     United States are--
       (A) permitted daily phone calls and regular contact visits 
     with their children or wards;
       (B) able to participate fully, and to the extent possible 
     in-person, in all family court proceedings and any other 
     proceeding impacting upon custody of their children or wards;
       (C) able to fully comply with all family court or child 
     welfare agency orders impacting upon custody of their 
     children or wards;
       (D) provided with contact information for family courts in 
     all 50 States, the District of Columbia, all United States 
     territories, counties, and local jurisdictions;
       (E) granted free and confidential telephone calls to child 
     welfare agencies and family courts;
       (F) granted free and confidential telephone calls and 
     confidential in-person visits with attorneys, legal 
     representatives, and consular officials;
       (G) provided United States passport applications for the 
     purpose of obtaining travel documents for their children or 
     wards;
       (H) granted adequate time before removal to obtain 
     passports and other necessary travel documents on behalf of 
     their children or wards if such children or wards will 
     accompany them on their return to their country of origin or 
     join them in their country of origin; and
       (I) provided with the access necessary to obtain birth 
     records or other documents required to obtain passports for 
     their children or wards; and
       (3) facilitate the ability of detained parents, legal 
     guardians, and primary caregivers to share information 
     regarding travel arrangements with their children or wards, 
     child welfare agencies, or other caregivers well in advance 
     of the detained individual's departure from the United 
     States.

     SEC. 5. MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security shall develop and 
     implement memoranda of understanding or protocols with child 
     welfare agencies and NGOs regarding the best ways to 
     cooperate and facilitate ongoing communication between all 
     relevant entities in cases involving a child whose parent, 
     legal guardian, or primary caregiver has been apprehended or 
     detained in an immigration enforcement action to protect the 
     best interests of the child and the best outcome for the 
     family of the child.

     SEC. 6. MANDATORY TRAINING.

       The Secretary of Homeland Security , in consultation with 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services and independent 
     child welfare experts, shall require and provide in-person 
     training on the protections required under sections 3 and 4 
     to all personnel of the Department of Homeland Security and 
     of States and local entities acting under agreement with the 
     Department of Homeland Security who regularly come into 
     contact with children or parents in the course of conducting 
     immigration enforcement actions.

     SEC. 7. RULEMAKING.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promulgate 
     regulations to implement this Act.

     SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, 
     or the application of a provision or amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of the provisions and amendment to any person 
     or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.
                                  ____


   National Organizations Supporting the HELP Separated Children Act

       AFL-CIO; America's Promise Alliance; American Humane 
     Association; American Immigration Lawyers Association; 
     American Muslim Voice; American Nursery & Landscape 
     Association; Amnesty International USA; Arizona Council of 
     Human Service Providers; Asian & Pacific Islander American 
     Health Forum; Asian American Justice Center; Asian Pacific 
     American Labor Alliance; Bridging Group; Catholic Charities 
     USA; Center for Asian Pacific Islander; Center for Farmworker 
     Families; Child Welfare League of America; Church World 
     Service, Immigration and Refugee Program; The Episcopal 
     Church; Every Child Matters Education Fund; Family Violence 
     Prevention Fund; First Focus Campaign for Children; Foster 
     Care Alumni of America; Foster Family-based Treatment 
     Association; Friends Committee on National Legislation; 
     Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS); Human Rights Watch; 
     Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Immigration Equality; 
     Juvenile Law Center; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Latino 
     Commission on AIDS; Legal Momentum; Lutheran Immigrant and 
     Refugee Service (LIRS); Lutheran Immigration and Refugee 
     Service (LIRS); Mennonite Central Committee U.S.--Washington 
     Office; Midwest Coalition for Human Rights; Moms Rising; 
     National Association for the Education of Homeless Children 
     and Youth; National Association of Social Workers; National 
     Consumers League; National Council of Jewish Women; National 
     Council of La Raza; National Federation of Filipino American 
     Associations; National Foster Care Coalition; National 
     Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Forum; 
     National Immigration

[[Page 11328]]

     Law Center; National Korean American Service & Education 
     Consortium; National Latino AIDS Action Network; National 
     Policy Partnership; OCA; Physicians for Human Rights; 
     Saavedra Law Firm; Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty 
     Law; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, South Central 
     Community; Sojourners; South Asian Americans Leading Together 
     (SAALT); Southeast Asia Resource Action Center; U.S. 
     Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; Union for Reform 
     Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; 
     United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society; 
     Voices for America's Children; Women's Refugee Commission; 
     Youth Build USA; Zero to Three.

 State and Local Organizations Supporting the HELP Separated Children 
                                  Act


                                Arizona

       Arizona Council of Human Service Providers; Children's 
     Action Alliance; Florence Project; Global Family Legal 
     Services; MEChA Arizona Student Union; Tumbleweed, Center for 
     Youth Development.


                                Arkansas

       Arkansas Voices.


                               California

       Asian Law Alliance; California Immigrant Policy Center; 
     Children Now; Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los 
     Angeles; East Bay Community Law Center; International 
     Institute of the Bay Area; Public Counsel.


                                Colorado

       Lutheran Advocacy Ministries; Rocky Mountain Immigrant 
     Advocacy Network.


                              Connecticut

       Connecticut Voices for Children.


                          District of Columbia

       Ayuda; The Episcopal Church.


                                Florida

       Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center; Florida Legal Services, 
     Inc.; Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc.; Legal Aid Society of 
     the Orange County Bar Association, Inc.; Legal Ministry 
     H.E.L.P., Inc.


                                Georgia

       Asian American Legal Advocacy Center, Inc. (AALAC) of 
     Georgia; Georgia Rural Urban Summit; Latinos for Education & 
     Justice Organization.


                                Illinois

       Instituto del Progreso Latino; Maria Baldini-Potermin & 
     Associates.


                                  Iowa

       Child and Family Policy Center; Lutheran Services in Iowa; 
     National Association of Social Workers, Iowa Chapter.


                                Kentucky

       Kentucky Youth Advocates.


                               Louisiana

       New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice.


                                 Maine

       Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project; Maine Children's 
     Alliance.


                                Maryland

       CASA de Maryland; Lutheran Office on Public Policy.


                                Michigan

       Bethany Children's Services; Immigrant Legal Advocacy 
     Project; Michigan's Children.


                               Minnesota

       Advocates for Human Rights; American Immigration Lawyers 
     Association, Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter; Ascension Church; 
     Benedictine-Franciscan Immigrant Justice Commission (St. 
     Joseph & Little Falls, MN); Casa Guadalupana; Catholic 
     Charities of St. Paul & Minneapolis; Center for Asian Pacific 
     Islanders; Center for Mission, Archdiocese of St. Paul and 
     Minneapolis; Children's Defense Fund Minnesota; Children's 
     Law Center of Minnesota; Chinese Social Service Center; 
     Church World Service; Congregational Council, the Miracle 
     Lutheran Church; Department of Social Concerns, Catholic 
     Charities of the Diocese of St. Cloud; Family & Children's 
     Service; Franciscan Sisters of Little Falls; Great River 
     Interfaith Partnership; Hmong American Partnership; 
     Hospitality Minnesota; Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota; 
     Immigration Task Force, Minnesota Conference United Church of 
     Christ; Interfaith Coalition on Immigration; ISAIAH; Jewish 
     Community Action; Justice Commission of the Sisters of St. 
     Joseph of Carondelet and Consociates; Latin America & Haiti 
     Focus Group, St. Luke's Presbyterian Church; Legal Rights 
     Center; Lutheran Coalition for Public Policy in Minnesota; 
     Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota; Metropolitan Consortium 
     of Community Developers; Mid-Minnesota Legal Assistance; 
     Midwest Food Processors Association; Minnesota Advocates for 
     Human Rights; Minnesota AFL-CIO; Minnesota Agri-Growth 
     Council; Minnesota Alliance With Youth; Minnesota Business 
     Immigration Coalition; Minnesota Catholic Conference; 
     Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Minnesota Fathers & Families 
     Network; Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association; Minnesota 
     Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Minnesota Lodging Association; 
     Minnesota Milk Producers Association; Minnesota Nursery & 
     Landscape Association; Minnesota Restaurant Association; 
     Minnesota School Social Workers Association; Minnesota 
     Strengthening Our Lives (SOL); No More Children Left Behind; 
     Office of Justice, Peace & Integrity of Creation, School 
     Sisters of Notre Dame, Mankato; Project for Pride in Living; 
     Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 26--
     Minneapolis; Service Employees International Union (SEIU), 
     Minnesota State Council; Sisters Online; Social Concerns & 
     Family Office, Diocese of New Ulm; Sowers Leadership Team, 
     Guardian Angels Catholic Church; St. John Neumann Catholic 
     Church; The Minneapolis Foundation; UFCW Local 1161--
     Worthington; UFCW Local 789--South St. Paul; UNITE Here, 
     Minnesota State Council; United Cambodian Association of 
     Minnesota; United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Local 
     1161--Worthington; United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), 
     Local 789--South St. Paul; Willmar Area Comprehensive 
     Immigration Reform; YWCA of Minneapolis.

   Minnesota Faith Leaders, Elected Officials & Community Advocates 
               Supporting the HELP Separated Children Act

       Rabbi Morris J. Allen, Beth Jacob Congregation; Rabbi Renee 
     Bauer, Mayim Rabim Congregation; Rev. Ralph Baumgartner, 
     Galilee Lutheran Church, Roseville, MN; Rev. Chris Becker, 
     Peace Lutheran Church, Inver Grove Heights, MN; Pastor Chris 
     Berthelsen, First Lutheran Church, St. Paul, MN; Rev. Mariann 
     Budde, St. John's Episcopal Church, Minneapolis, MN; Pastor 
     Sarah Campbell, Mayflower Community Congregational Church, 
     Minnapolis, MN; Mayor Chris Coleman, City of St. Paul; Rev. 
     Doug Donley, University Baptist Church, Minneapolis, MN; 
     Rabbi Amy Eilberg, Jay Phillips Center for Jewish-Christian 
     Learning; Pastor Paul Erickson, Evangelical Lutheran Church 
     of America, St. Paul, MN; Rev. James Erlandson, Lutheran 
     Church of the Redeemer, St. Paul, MN; Rev. G. Allen Foster, 
     Citadel of Hope Church, Brooklyn Park, MN; Pastor Pam 
     Fickenscher, Edina Community Lutheran Church, Edina, MN; Luz 
     Maria Frias, Human Rights & Equal Economic Opportunity Dept., 
     City of St. Paul; Pastor Dan Garnaas, Grace University 
     Lutheran Church, Minneapolis, MN; Rev. Chad Gilbertson, 
     Willmar, MN; Revs. Patrick & Luisa Cabello Hansel, 
     Minneapolis Area Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
     America, Minneapolis, MN; Rev. Richard Headen, Presbyterian 
     Church USA, Plymouth, MN; Allan D. Henden, Lay Leader, United 
     Church of Christ, Minneapolis, MN; Rev. Karen Hering, Unity 
     Unitarian Church, St. Paul, MN; Rev. Anita C. Hill, St. Paul, 
     MN; Loan T. Huynh, Attorney at Law; Bishop Craig E. Johnson, 
     Minneapolis Area Synod, Evangelical Lutheran Church in 
     America, Minneapolis, MN; Elder Karen Larson, St. Luke 
     Presbyterian Church, Minnetonka, MN; Rabbi Michael Latz, Shir 
     Tikvah Congregation; Charles & Hertha Lutz, Peace and Justice 
     Advocates, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 
     Minneapolis, MN; Miguel Lucas Lindgren, DFL Latino Caucus 
     Treasurer, Roseville, MN; Brianna MacPhee, Executive Board, 
     Minnesota Latino Caucus, Minneapolis, MN; Pastor Rod Maeker, 
     Faculty (ret.), Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN; Rev. Naomi 
     Mahler, Paz y Esperanza Lutheran Church, Willmar, MN; Pastor 
     Susan Maetzold Moss, Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota; Sen. Mee 
     Moua (Dist. 67), Chair, Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee, 
     St. Paul, MN; Lauren Morse-Wendt, Mission and Ministry 
     Developer, Edina, MN; Pastor Richard Mork, Evangelical 
     Lutheran Church in America, St. Paul, MN; Rev. Jen Nagel, 
     Salem English Lutheran, Minneapolis, MN; Rev. Karsten Nelson, 
     Our Redeemer Lutheran Church, St. Paul, MN; Rev. Keith H. 
     Olstad, St. Paul-Reformation Lutheran Church, St. Paul, MN; 
     Rafael Ortega, Ramsey County Commissioner; Pastor Paul Slack, 
     New Creation Community Church, Brooklyn Park, MN; Rev. Dr. 
     Karen Smith Sellers, Minnesota Conference United Church of 
     Christ; Roxanne Smith, Social Justice Dir., St. Joseph the 
     Worker Church, Maple Grove, MN; Chief Tom Smith, St. Paul 
     Police Department; Pastor Grant Stevensen, St. Matthew's 
     Lutheran Church, St. Paul, MN; Rabbi Adam Stock Spilke, Mount 
     Zion Temple; Pastor Eric Strand, Edina Community Church, 
     Edina, MN; Rev. Dale Stuepfert, Director of Chaplaincy 
     (ret.), Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN; 
     Pastor Steve Sylvester, Our Savior's Lutheran Church, Circle 
     Pines, MN; Linda Thompson, Lay Leader, St. Luke Presbyterian 
     Church, Plymouth, MN; Sen. Patricia Torres Ray (District 62); 
     Rev. Jill Tollefson, La Mision San Jose Obrero de Episcopal, 
     Montgomery, MN; Rev. Susan Tjornehoj, Minneapolis Area Synod, 
     Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Minneapolis, MN; 
     Pastor Jason Van Hunnik, Westwood Lutheran Church, St. Louis 
     Park, MN; Pastor Mark Vinge, House of Hope Lutheran Church, 
     New Hope, MN; Rev. David Wangaard, Minneapolis Area Synod, 
     Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Minneapolis, MN; 
     Pastor Mark Wegener, Woodlake Lutheran Church, Richfield, MN; 
     Rev. Bruce M. Westphal, Westwood Lutheran Church, St. Louis 
     Park, MN; Rev. Jonathan Zielske, Hope Lutheran Church.

[[Page 11329]]




                               New Jersey

       Association for Children of New Jersey; Casa Esperanza; 
     IRATE & First Friends; Statewide Parent Advocacy Network.


                               New Mexico

       For Families, LLC.; Lutheran Advocacy Ministry; New Mexico 
     Children, Youth and Families Protective Services Division; 
     New Mexico Women's Justice Project; PBJ Family Services, Inc.


                                New York

       Coalition for Asian American Children and Families; Make 
     the Road New York; The Osborne Association; Schuyler Center 
     for Analysis and Advocacy.


                             North Carolina

       Action for Children North Carolina; The Exceptional 
     Children's Assistance Center.


                                Oklahoma

       Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy.


                                 Oregon

       Immigration Counseling Services (Portland, OR).


                             South Carolina

       South Carolina Appleseed.


                                 Texas

       Catholic Charities of Dallas, Inc., Immigration & Legal 
     Services; Center for Public Policy Priorities; Daya Inc.; 
     Wilco Justice Alliance.


                                Virginia

       Voices for Virginia's Children.


                               Washington

       Children's Home Society of Washington; Northwest Immigrant 
     and Refugee Rights Project.

                          ____________________