STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
(Senate - January 31, 2007)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages S1411-S1458]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Biden, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Salazar, and Mr. Brown):
  S. 439. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to permit 
certain retired members of the uniformed services who have a service-
connected disability to receive both disability compensation from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs for their disability and either retired 
pay by reason of their years of military service or Combat-Related 
Special Compensation; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are going to have a debate on Iraq, and 
it will be a historic debate about that war, a war that has demanded 
unparalleled sacrifices from our men and women in uniform.
  While we have our disagreements with the President's conduct of the 
war, all 100 Senators stand side by side in supporting our troops. They 
have done everything asked of them, carrying out a difficult mission 
with honor and skill. We as a country owe the brave men and women in 
our military a debt of gratitude and have responsibility to ensure our 
veterans receive both the thanks of a grateful nation and the benefits 
they have earned,

[[Page S1412]]

and that is a subject I would like to discuss briefly this morning.
  About 8 years ago, one of my staff came to me and said: Senator, do 
you realize that if a person is disabled in the military and retires 
from the military, they cannot draw on both their benefits? I said: 
What? And he repeated that. If you are in the military and you become 
disabled and you retire, you cannot draw both your benefits. I thought 
my staffer didn't know what he was talking about, but he did. That was 
the law in our country and had been for many years, and it was a wrong 
law. That law is still mostly in effect, and that is too bad.
  When someone who is disabled retires from the U.S. military, he or 
she cannot draw on both their benefits. If you retire from any other 
branch of the Federal Government, such as the Bureau of Land 
Management, you can draw both your disability pay and your retirement 
pay but, no, not if you are in the military. These people have been 
robbed of their benefits, in my opinion, and I refer specifically to 
thousands of men and women who have been denied their retirement 
because of an unfair policy referred to as concurrent receipt.
  By law, disabled veterans, as I have said, cannot collect disability 
pay and retirement pay at the same time. What does this mean? It means 
for every dollar of compensation a disabled veteran receives as a 
result of their injuries, they must sacrifice a dollar of their 
retirement pay they earned in the service of our Nation. In many cases, 
this ban takes away a veteran's full retirement pay, wiping away the 
benefits he or she earned in 20 or more years of service. That is 
wrong.
  Concurrent receipt is a special tax on the men and women who keep us 
safe. Few veterans can afford to live on their retirement pay alone. 
Those burdened with disability face an even greater struggle, often 
denied any postservice work. They receive disability compensation to 
pay for pain, suffering, and loss of future earnings caused by a 
service-connected illness or injury. No other Federal retiree is forced 
to make forfeit of their retirement--only our disabled military 
retirees. This is not just an error, it is a disgrace.
  Of course, concurrent receipt is not a new problem. I hope most 
everyone in the Senate knows about it. This is the seventh year I have 
introduced legislation to give disabled veterans the support they have 
earned, and I will continue fighting until we succeed, ending this 
unacceptable policy.
  I first of all want to suggest that the two managers of the Defense 
bill, every year since I have worked on this, have been Senator Warner 
and Senator Levin, and they have helped me. I appreciate that very 
much. They have been thoughtful and understanding in their approach to 
this issue. What has happened these past 7 years is good but not really 
good. We have chipped away at this unfair policy of concurrent receipt.
  In 2000, I introduced legislation to eliminate this unfair policy for 
the first time. I did it at the end of the 106th Congress. This 
legislation passed the Senate but was removed by the House during 
conference. So I reintroduced the legislation in the 107th Congress, in 
both 2001 and 2002. Unfortunately, it was once again adopted by the 
Senate but removed in conference.
  In 2003, I proposed legislation to allow disabled veterans with at 
least a 50-percent disability rating to become eligible for full 
concurrent receipt over a 10-year phase-in period. Despite veto threats 
from the Bush administration, Congress passed this very important 
version of concurrent receipt.
  In 2004, I took it a step further. I introduced legislation to 
eliminate the 10-year phase-in period for veterans with a 100-percent 
disability. The motivation here was to get concurrent receipt to the 
most severely disabled veterans. We thought many of these veterans 
would never see the benefits with a 10-year phase-in. They are old 
World War II veterans, where the average age is well over 80 now, and 
to think they would have to wait 10 years for a phase-in isn't very 
fair.
  In 2005, we focused on the most severely disabled veterans and 
successfully eliminated the 10-year phase-in for veterans listed as 
unemployable. I was pleased with the passage of that 2005 amendment but 
disappointed that the conference committee chose not to enact this 
valuable legislation for veterans rated as unemployable until 2009. So 
in 2006, I sought to get unemployable veterans immediate relief, but we 
didn't act. Congress didn't act.
  So here we are in 2007, back at it again. Today, concurrent receipt 
remains one of my highest priorities. It is a priority, I believe, in 
fairness. We need to continue to chip away at this policy, and I am 
committed to that goal 100 percent, so that 100 percent of disabled 
veterans get the money they earn in being part of the great fighting 
force of this Nation.
  We are blessed in this country to be defended by an All-Volunteer 
Army. These patriots put their lives and safety on the line because 
they love this country. I believe it is time for this country and this 
Congress to repay their service and sacrifice, and that is why I am 
reintroducing today the Retired Pay Restoration Act of 2007.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 
legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 439

       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 ``Retired Pay Restoration Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY FOR PAYMENT OF BOTH RETIRED PAY AND 
                   VETERANS' DISABILITY COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN 
                   MILITARY RETIREES WITH COMPENSABLE SERVICE-
                   CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

       (a) Extension of Concurrent Receipt Authority to Retirees 
     With Service-Connected Disabilities Rated Less Than 50 
     Percent.--
       (1) Repeal of 50 percent requirement.--Section 1414 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     paragraph (2) of subsection (a).
       (2) Computation.--Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) of such 
     section is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(G) For a month for which the retiree receives veterans' 
     disability compensation for a disability rated as 40 percent 
     or less or has a service-connected disability rated as zero 
     percent, $0.''.
       (b) Repeal of Phase-In of Concurrent Receipt for Retirees 
     With Service-Connected Disabilities Rated as Total.--
     Subsection (a)(1) of such section is amended by striking 
     ``except that'' and all that follows and inserting ``except--
       ``(A) in the case of a qualified retiree receiving 
     veterans' disability compensation for a disability rated as 
     100 percent, payment of retired pay to such veteran is 
     subject to subsection (c) only during the period beginning on 
     January 1, 2004, and ending on December 31, 2004; and
       ``(B) in the case of a qualified retiree receiving 
     veterans' disability compensation for a disability rated as 
     total by reason of unemployability, payment of retired pay to 
     such veteran is subject to subsection (c) only during the 
     period beginning on January 1, 2004, and ending on December 
     31, 2007.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendments.--
       (1) The heading for section 1414 of such title is amended 
     to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also 
       eligible for veterans' disability compensation: concurrent 
       payment of retired pay and disability compensation''.

       (2) The item relating to such section in the table of 
     sections at the beginning of chapter 71 of such title is 
     amended to read as follows:

``1414. Members eligible for retired pay who are also eligible for 
              veterans' disability compensation: concurrent payment of 
              retired pay and disability compensation.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2008, and shall apply to 
     payments for months beginning on or after that date.

     SEC. 3. COORDINATION OF SERVICE ELIGIBILITY FOR COMBAT-
                   RELATED SPECIAL COMPENSATION AND CONCURRENT 
                   RECEIPT.

       (a) Eligibility for TERA Retirees.--Subsection (c) of 
     section 1413a of title 10, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``entitled to retired pay who--'' and inserting 
     ``who--
       ``(1) is entitled to retired pay, other than a member 
     retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 
     years of service creditable under section 1405 of this title 
     and less than 20 years of service computed under section 
     12732 of this title; and
       ``(2) has a combat-related disability.''.
       (b) Amendments To Standardize Similar Provisions.--
       (1) Clerical amendment.--The heading for paragraph (3) of 
     section 1413a(b) of such title is amended by striking 
     ``rules'' and inserting ``rule''.
       (2) Qualified retirees.--Subsection (a) of section 1414 of 
     such title, as amended by section 2(a), is amended--

[[Page S1413]]

       (A) by striking ``a member or'' and all that follows 
     through ``retiree')'' and inserting ``a qualified retiree''; 
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Qualified retirees.--For purposes of this section, a 
     qualified retiree, with respect to any month, is a member or 
     former member of the uniformed services who--
       ``(A) is entitled to retired pay, other than in the case of 
     a member retired under chapter 61 of this title with less 
     than 20 years of service creditable under section 1405 of 
     this title and less than 20 years of service computed under 
     section 12732 of this title; and
       ``(B) is also entitled for that month to veterans' 
     disability compensation.''.
       (3) Disability retirees.--Subsection (b) of section 1414 of 
     such title is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Special Rules'' in the subsection heading 
     and all that follows through ``is subject to'' and inserting 
     ``Special Rule for Chapter 61 Disability Retirees.--In the 
     case of a qualified retiree who is retired under chapter 61 
     of this title, the retired pay of the member is subject to''; 
     and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2).
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on January 1, 2008, and shall apply to 
     payments for months beginning on or after that date.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Obama):
  S. 441. A bill to permit certain school districts in Illinois to be 
reconstituted for purposes of determining assistance under the Impact 
Aid program; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 441

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

     SECTION 1. ELIGIBILITY FOR IMPACT AID PAYMENT.

       (a) Local Educational Agencies.--Notwithstanding section 
     8013(9)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7713(9)(B)), North Chicago Community Unit 
     School District 187, North Shore District 112, and Township 
     High School District 113 in Lake County, Illinois, and 
     Glenview Public School District 34 and Glenbrook High School 
     District 225 in Cook County, Illinois, shall be considered 
     local educational agencies as such term is used in and for 
     purposes of title VIII of such Act.
       (b) Computation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, federally connected children (as determined under 
     section 8003(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a))) who are in attendance in the 
     North Shore District 112, Township High School District 113, 
     Glenview Public School District 34, and Glenbrook High School 
     District 225 described in subsection (a), shall be considered 
     to be in attendance in the North Chicago Community Unit 
     School District 187 described in subsection (a) for purposes 
     of computing the amount that the North Chicago Community Unit 
     School District 187 is eligible to receive under subsection 
     (b) or (d) of such section if--
       (1) such school districts have entered into an agreement 
     for such students to be so considered and for the equitable 
     apportionment among all such school districts of any amount 
     received by the North Chicago Community Unit School District 
     187 under such section; and
       (2) any amount apportioned among all such school districts 
     pursuant to paragraph (1) is used by such school districts 
     only for the direct provision of educational services.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Smith, 
        Mr. Kerry, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 442. A bill to provide for loan repayment for prosecutors and 
public defenders; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the John R. 
Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007. I am honored 
to have the support and cosponsorship of Senator Leahy and Senator 
Specter, the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, on 
this important legislation. I look forward to working closely with 
Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Specter to advance it through the 
Judiciary Committee and secure its enactment into law. I also 
appreciate the cosponsorship of Senator Smith, Senator Kerry and 
Senator Collins on this bipartisan bill.
  Our bill seeks to enhance our criminal justice system by encouraging 
talented law school graduates to serve as criminal prosecutors and 
public defenders. The bill would establish a student loan repayment 
program for qualified attorneys who agree to remain employed for at 
least 3 years as State or local criminal prosecutors, or as State, 
local, or Federal public defenders in criminal cases.
  This legislation is supported by the American Bar Association, the 
National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of 
Prosecutor Coordinators, the National Legal Aid and Defender 
Association, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
  For our criminal justice system to function effectively, we need to 
have a sufficient supply of dedicated and competent attorneys working 
in prosecutor and public defender offices. However, many qualified law 
school graduates who have a strong motivation to work in the public 
sector find it economically impossible due to the overwhelming burden 
of student loan debt.
  The legal profession and our communities pay a severe price when law 
graduates are shut out from pursuing public service careers due to 
educational debt. When prosecutor and public defender offices cannot 
attract new lawyers or keep experienced ones, their ability to protect 
the public interest is compromised. Such offices may find themselves 
unable to take on new cases due to staffing shortages, and their 
existing staff may be forced to handle unmanageable workloads. Cases 
may suffer from lengthy and unnecessary delays, and some cases may be 
mishandled by inexperienced or overworked attorneys. As a result, 
innocent people may be sent to jail, and criminals may go free.
  Our bill, the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive 
Act, is designed to help remedy some of these problems. The 
availability of student loan repayment can be a powerful incentive for 
attracting talented new lawyers to public service employment. Our 
proposal complements loan forgiveness options that currently exist for 
Federal prosecutors. Passage of this bill will help make prosecutor and 
public defender jobs at all levels of government more attractive and 
financially viable for law school graduates who have incurred 
significant educational debt.
  Our bill is named after the late John R. Justice, former president of 
the National District Attorneys Association and a distinguished 
prosecutor from the State of South Carolina. John Justice was 
instrumental in promoting student loan repayment efforts for law school 
graduates seeking to work in public service. This bill is a fitting 
tribute to his dedicated efforts.
  The need for this legislation is evident. In recent years, the costs 
of a law school education have skyrocketed. Researchers found that 
tuition increased about 340 percent from 1985 to 2002 for private law 
school students and for out-of-State students at public law schools. 
In-State students at public law schools saw their tuition jump about 
500 percent during that time. In 2005, the average annual tuition was 
$28,900 for private law schools, $22,987 for nonresident students at 
public law schools, and $13,145 for resident students at public law 
schools. These tuition costs do not include the costs of food, lodging, 
books, fees and personal expenses over 3 years of law school.
  Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of law students--over 80 percent--
must borrow funds to finance their legal education. According to the 
American Bar Association, the average total cumulative educational debt 
for law school graduates in the class of 2005 was $78,763 for private 
schools and $51,056 for public schools. Two-thirds of law students 
generally carry additional unpaid debt from their undergraduate 
studies. These education debts are serious financial obligations that 
must be repaid, as any default on a loan triggers significant 
consequences.
  Many law students graduate with a deep commitment to pursuing a 
career in public service. However, they need a level of income 
sufficient to meet the demands of their educational loan liabilities, 
and public service salaries have not kept up with rising law school 
debt burdens. From 1985 to 2002, while law school tuition increased 340 
percent for private law school students and 500 percent for in-state 
students at public law schools, salaries for public service lawyers 
such as prosecutors and public defenders increased by just 70 percent. 
According to the National Association for Law Placement, NALP, the 
median entry-level salary for public defenders is $43,000. With 11 to 
15 years of experience, the median salary

[[Page S1414]]

increases only to $65,500. The salary progression for State prosecuting 
attorneys is similar, starting at around $46,000 and progressing to 
about $68,000 for those with 11 to 15 years of experience.
  Many law school graduates can earn much more and repay their student 
loans much faster by entering the private sector. According to a NALP 
survey, in 2005 the median salary for first-year attorneys at law firms 
ranged from $67,500 in firms of 2 to 25 attorneys to $135,000 in firms 
of 500 attorneys or more. The median first-year salary for all firms 
participating in the survey was $100,000. When choosing between a 
private sector job and a job as a prosecutor or defender, talented law 
graduates with large debt burdens must take into consideration this 
salary differential.
  It is clear that large student debt deters many law graduates from 
pursuing public service careers. According to a national survey of 
1,622 students from 117 law schools conducted by Equal Justice Works, 
the Partnership for Public Service, and NALP in 2002, 66 percent of 
respondents stated that law school debt prevented them from considering 
a public interest or government job.
  Some law graduates initially accept public service jobs despite their 
high debt burdens. However, many attorneys cannot repay their loan 
obligations as well as pay all their other living expenses on a 
government salary. Attorneys who begin careers in public service, and 
who would like to remain, frequently leave after a few years when they 
find their debts are hindering their ability to provide for themselves, 
much less support their families or save for retirement.
  Many public service employers report having a difficult time 
attracting and retaining talented law graduates. Prosecutor and public 
defender offices across the country have vacancies they cannot fill 
because new law graduates cannot afford to work for them. 
Alternatively, those who do hire law graduates find that, because of 
educational debt burdens, those whom they do hire leave just at the 
point when they have acquired the experience to provide the most 
valuable services. According to a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, 
24 percent of state prosecutors' offices reported problems in 2005 with 
recruiting new attorneys, and 35 percent reported problems in retaining 
attorneys. Another survey administered by Equal Justice Works and the 
National Legal Aid & Defender Association in 2002 found that over 60 
percent of public interest law employers, including state and local 
prosecutor and public defender offices, reported difficulty in attorney 
recruitment and retention.
  I recently received a letter from Bernard Murray, President of the 
Prosecutors Bar Association and Chief of the Criminal Prosecutions 
Bureau for the Cook County State's Attorney's Office in Chicago. He 
wrote: ``[W]e are faced with enormous hurdles in attracting first-rate 
candidates to pursue a career with the Cook County State's Attorney's 
Office. We simply cannot afford to pay new assistants a salary high 
enough to offset the enormous debt load that follows them from their 
law school graduation.''
  His letter also stated: ``We are observing an exodus of talent at 
about the three to five year experience mark in the office when 
assistants are no longer able to postpone life events such as marriage, 
home ownership, and starting a family. We are losing much of our best 
talent before they even have a chance to put their skills to use in 
felony cases.''
  I also received a copy of a letter from Michael Judge, Chief Defender 
of the Los Angeles County Public Defender Office, the oldest and 
largest such office in the Nation. His letter states the following 
about his office's efforts to recruit new lawyers: ``It became 
necessary to expand the ambit of recruiting from locally to statewide, 
to the western region of the country and now to the entire nation to 
ensure the success of our recruiting in the face of the deterrent of 
crushing student loan debt. . . .  In some sense we are `poaching' in 
the territory of other defender offices. . . . I have experienced more 
`turndowns' of employment offers in the recent past than during my 
first 9 or 10 years as Chief Defender. I attribute that to the `ice 
cold water in the face syndrome' experienced by motivated candidates 
making the final net calculations and discovering a defender career can 
be an adventure in deficit financing.''
  It harms the public interest when communities face a shortage of 
attorneys who can effectively prosecute cases and provide criminal 
defendants with their constitutional right to counsel. Sadly, these 
situations occur all too frequently. We can--and should--do more to 
help prosecutor and public defender offices recruit and retain 
attorneys in the face of increasing student debt burdens and higher 
private sector salaries.
  Our legislation would help by establishing, within the Department of 
Justice, a program of student loan repayment for borrowers who agree to 
remain employed for at least three years as State or local criminal 
prosecutors, or as State, local, or Federal public defenders in 
criminal cases. It would allow eligible attorneys to receive student 
loan debt repayments of up to $10,000 per year, with a maximum 
aggregate over time of $60,000. The bill would cover student loans 
made, insured, or guaranteed under the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
including consolidation loans.
  Under our bill, repayment benefits for public sector attorneys would 
be made available on a first-come, first-served basis, and would be 
subject to the availability of appropriations. Priority would be given 
to borrowers who received repayment benefits for the preceding fiscal 
year and who have completed less than three years of the first required 
service period. Borrowers could enter into an additional agreement, 
after the required three-year period, for a successive period of 
service which may be less than three years. Attorneys who do not 
complete their required period of service would be required to repay 
the government.
  In addition to covering those who agree to serve in State and local 
prosecutor and defender offices, our bill complements existing loan 
forgiveness programs that are currently available for Federal 
prosecutors by making loan relief available to Federal public defenders 
as well.
  Our bill is modeled on a loan repayment program that has been created 
for Federal executive branch employees and that has enjoyed growing 
success. Federal law currently permits Federal executive branch 
agencies to repay their employees' student loans, up to $10,000 in a 
year, and up to a lifetime maximum of $60,000. In exchange, the 
employee must agree to remain with the agency for at least three years. 
According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), during fiscal 
year 2005 there were 479 lawyers working in Federal agencies who 
received loan repayments under this program, including 242 lawyers for 
the Securities and Exchange Commission and 85 attorneys for the 
Department of Justice. According to OPM, Federal agencies across the 
board say that the program has been of tremendous benefit in recruiting 
and retaining attorneys.
  As I have worked on behalf of our legislation, I have been moved by 
the personal stories of attorneys who have been trying to embark on a 
career of public service but have been struggling because of student 
loans. One compelling letter I received came from Aisha Cornelius, an 
Assistant State's Attorney in Cook County, Illinois. Her letter said 
the following: ``I am a full-time prosecutor in Cook County. I wanted 
this job because I desired to use my law degree for public service. 
Although making a lot of money was not my primary goal, I had hoped at 
least for financial stability. This, however, is difficult to 
accomplish as my student loan payments take up a considerable amount of 
my income. I have more than $100,000 in student loan debt. I am also a 
single mother with a five-year-old daughter in kindergarten. In order 
to work, I have to pay for before- and after-school care for her. . . . 
I depleted my savings while studying for the bar exam last year and I 
essentially live check to check. In order to supplement my income, I 
sell cosmetics and skin care. I am also in the process of applying for 
a part-time evening teaching position. I love my job and serving the 
greater good. The only reason I would ever leave public service is if I 
could no longer afford to stay. This is much more of a possibility than 
I would like it to be. Loan repayment assistance would help me stay 
longer in a position

[[Page S1415]]

that allows me to serve the community during the day while giving me 
the freedom and peace of mind to focus [on] my daughter at night.''
  I appreciate Ms. Cornelius's willingness to share her story with me. 
By enacting and funding this legislation, we can take a meaningful step 
toward alleviating some of the financial burden for attorneys such as 
Ms. Cornelius who choose careers as criminal prosecutors and public 
defenders.
  I know there are many other law graduates who, like Aisha Cornelius, 
want to apply their legal training and develop their skills in the 
public sector, but are deterred by the weight of student loan 
obligations. Passage of the John R. Justice Prosecutors and Defenders 
Incentive Act will help them make their career dreams a reality. I urge 
its swift adoption.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 442

       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 ``John R. Justice Prosecutors 
     and Defenders Incentive Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. LOAN REPAYMENT FOR PROSECUTORS AND DEFENDERS.

       Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 
     of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:

     ``PART JJ--LOAN REPAYMENT FOR PROSECUTORS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS

     ``SEC. 3111. GRANT AUTHORIZATION.

       ``(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to encourage 
     qualified individuals to enter and continue employment as 
     prosecutors and public defenders.
       ``(b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Prosecutor.--The term `prosecutor' means a full-time 
     employee of a State or local agency who--
       ``(A) is continually licensed to practice law; and
       ``(B) prosecutes criminal cases at the State or local 
     level.
       ``(2) Public defender.--The term `public defender' means an 
     attorney who--
       ``(A) is continually licensed to practice law; and
       ``(B) is--
       ``(i) a full-time employee of a State or local agency or a 
     nonprofit organization operating under a contract with a 
     State or unit of local government, that provides legal 
     representation to indigent persons in criminal cases; or
       ``(ii) employed as a full-time Federal defender attorney in 
     a defender organization established pursuant to subsection 
     (g) of section 3006A of title 18, United States Code, that 
     provides legal representation to indigent persons in criminal 
     cases.
       ``(3) Student loan.--The term `student loan' means--
       ``(A) a loan made, insured, or guaranteed under part B of 
     title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 
     et seq.);
       ``(B) a loan made under part D or E of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq. and 
     1087aa et seq.); and
       ``(C) a loan made under section 428C or 455(g) of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1078-3 and 1087e(g)) 
     to the extent that such loan was used to repay a Federal 
     Direct Stafford Loan, a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford 
     Loan, or a loan made under section 428 or 428H of such Act.
       ``(c) Program Authorized.--The Attorney General shall 
     establish a program by which the Department of Justice shall 
     assume the obligation to repay a student loan, by direct 
     payments on behalf of a borrower to the holder of such loan, 
     in accordance with subsection (d), for any borrower who--
       ``(1) is employed as a prosecutor or public defender; and
       ``(2) is not in default on a loan for which the borrower 
     seeks forgiveness.
       ``(d) Terms of Agreement.--
       ``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive repayment 
     benefits under subsection (c), a borrower shall enter into a 
     written agreement that specifies that--
       ``(A) the borrower will remain employed as a prosecutor or 
     public defender for a required period of service of not less 
     than 3 years, unless involuntarily separated from that 
     employment;
       ``(B) if the borrower is involuntarily separated from 
     employment on account of misconduct, or voluntarily separates 
     from employment, before the end of the period specified in 
     the agreement, the borrower will repay the Attorney General 
     the amount of any benefits received by such employee under 
     this section;
       ``(C) if the borrower is required to repay an amount to the 
     Attorney General under subparagraph (B) and fails to repay 
     such amount, a sum equal to that amount shall be recoverable 
     by the Federal Government from the employee (or such 
     employee's estate, if applicable) by such methods as are 
     provided by law for the recovery of amounts owed to the 
     Federal Government;
       ``(D) the Attorney General may waive, in whole or in part, 
     a right of recovery under this subsection if it is shown that 
     recovery would be against equity and good conscience or 
     against the public interest; and
       ``(E) the Attorney General shall make student loan payments 
     under this section for the period of the agreement, subject 
     to the availability of appropriations.
       ``(2) Repayments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any amount repaid by, or recovered from, 
     an individual or the estate of an individual under this 
     subsection shall be credited to the appropriation account 
     from which the amount involved was originally paid.
       ``(B) Merger.--Any amount credited under subparagraph (A) 
     shall be merged with other sums in such account and shall be 
     available for the same purposes and period, and subject to 
     the same limitations, if any, as the sums with which the 
     amount was merged.
       ``(3) Limitations.--
       ``(A) Student loan payment amount.--Student loan repayments 
     made by the Attorney General under this section shall be made 
     subject to such terms, limitations, or conditions as may be 
     mutually agreed upon by the borrower and the Attorney General 
     in an agreement under paragraph (1), except that the amount 
     paid by the Attorney General under this section shall not 
     exceed--
       ``(i) $10,000 for any borrower in any calendar year; or
       ``(ii) an aggregate total of $60,000 in the case of any 
     borrower.
       ``(B) Beginning of payments.--Nothing in this section shall 
     authorize the Attorney General to pay any amount to reimburse 
     a borrower for any repayments made by such borrower prior to 
     the date on which the Attorney General entered into an 
     agreement with the borrower under this subsection.
       ``(e) Additional Agreements.--
       ``(1) In general.--On completion of the required period of 
     service under an agreement under subsection (d), the borrower 
     and the Attorney General may, subject to paragraph (2), enter 
     into an additional agreement in accordance with subsection 
     (d).
       ``(2) Term.--An agreement entered into under paragraph (1) 
     may require the borrower to remain employed as a prosecutor 
     or public defender for less than 3 years.
       ``(f) Award Basis; Priority.--
       ``(1) Award basis.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Attorney 
     General shall provide repayment benefits under this section 
     on a first-come, first-served basis, and subject to the 
     availability of appropriations.
       ``(2) Priority.--The Attorney General shall give priority 
     in providing repayment benefits under this section in any 
     fiscal year to a borrower who--
       ``(A) received repayment benefits under this section during 
     the preceding fiscal year; and
       ``(B) has completed less than 3 years of the first required 
     period of service specified for the borrower in an agreement 
     entered into under subsection (d).
       ``(g) Regulations.--The Attorney General is authorized to 
     issue such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 
     provisions of this section.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $25,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be 
     necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN:
  S. 446. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize 
capitation grants to increase the number of nursing faculty and 
students, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 446

       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 ``Nurse Education, Expansion, 
     and Development Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) While the Nurse Reinvestment Act (Public Law 107-205) 
     helped to increase applications to schools of nursing by 125 
     percent, schools of nursing have been unable to accommodate 
     the influx of interested students because they have an 
     insufficient number of nurse educators. It is estimated 
     that--
       (A) in the 2006-2007 school year--
       (i) 66.6 percent of schools of nursing had from 1 to 18 
     vacant faculty positions; and
       (ii) an additional 16.7 percent of schools of nursing 
     needed additional faculty, but lacked the resources needed to 
     add more positions; and
       (B) 41,683 eligible candidates were denied admission to 
     schools of nursing in 2005, primarily due to an insufficient 
     number of faculty members.
       (2) A growing number of nurses with doctoral degrees are 
     choosing careers outside of education. Over the last few 
     years, 22.5 percent of doctoral nursing graduates reported 
     seeking employment outside the education profession.

[[Page S1416]]

       (3) In 2006 the average age of nurse faculty at retirement 
     is 63.1 years. With the average age of doctorally-prepared 
     nurse faculty at 54.7 years in 2005, a wave of retirements is 
     expected within the next 10 years.
       (4) Master's and doctoral programs in nursing are not 
     producing a large enough pool of potential nurse educators to 
     meet the projected demand for nurses over the next 10 years. 
     While graduations from master's and doctoral programs in 
     nursing rose by 12.8 percent (or 1,369 graduates) and 13.1 
     percent (or 56 graduates), respectively, in the 2005-2006 
     school year, projections still demonstrate a shortage of 
     nurse faculty. Given current trends, there will be at least 
     2,616 unfilled faculty positions in 2012.
       (5) According to the February 2004 Monthly Labor Review of 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 1,000,000 new and 
     replacement nurses will be needed by 2012.

     SEC. 3. CAPITATION GRANTS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF NURSING 
                   FACULTY AND STUDENTS.

       (a) Grants.--Part D of title VIII of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296p) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

     ``SEC. 832. CAPITATION GRANTS.

       ``(a) In General.--For the purpose described in subsection 
     (b), the Secretary, acting through the Health Resources and 
     Services Administration, shall award a grant each fiscal year 
     in an amount determined in accordance with subsection (c) to 
     each eligible school of nursing that submits an application 
     in accordance with this section.
       ``(b) Purpose.--A funding agreement for a grant under this 
     section is that the eligible school of nursing involved will 
     expend the grant to increase the number of nursing faculty 
     and students at the school, including by hiring new faculty, 
     retaining current faculty, purchasing educational equipment 
     and audiovisual laboratories, enhancing clinical 
     laboratories, repairing and expanding infrastructure, or 
     recruiting students.
       ``(c) Grant Computation.--
       ``(1) Amount per student.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     amount of a grant to an eligible school of nursing under this 
     section for a fiscal year shall be the total of the 
     following:
       ``(A) $1,800 for each full-time or part-time student who is 
     enrolled at the school in a graduate program in nursing 
     that--
       ``(i) leads to a master's degree, a doctoral degree, or an 
     equivalent degree; and
       ``(ii) prepares individuals to serve as faculty through 
     additional course work in education and ensuring competency 
     in an advanced practice area.
       ``(B) $1,405 for each full-time or part-time student who--
       ``(i) is enrolled at the school in a program in nursing 
     leading to a bachelor of science degree, a bachelor of 
     nursing degree, a graduate degree in nursing if such program 
     does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (A), or an 
     equivalent degree; and
       ``(ii) has not more than 3 years of academic credits 
     remaining in the program.
       ``(C) $966 for each full-time or part-time student who is 
     enrolled at the school in a program in nursing leading to an 
     associate degree in nursing or an equivalent degree.
       ``(2) Limitation.--In calculating the amount of a grant to 
     a school under paragraph (1), the Secretary may not make a 
     payment with respect to a particular student--
       ``(A) for more than 2 fiscal years in the case of a student 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) who is enrolled in a graduate 
     program in nursing leading to a master's degree or an 
     equivalent degree;
       ``(B) for more than 4 fiscal years in the case of a student 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) who is enrolled in a graduate 
     program in nursing leading to a doctoral degree or an 
     equivalent degree;
       ``(C) for more than 3 fiscal years in the case of a student 
     described in paragraph (1)(B); or
       ``(D) for more than 2 fiscal years in the case of a student 
     described in paragraph (1)(C).
       ``(d) Eligibility.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `eligible school of nursing' means a school of nursing that--
       ``(1) is accredited by a nursing accrediting agency 
     recognized by the Secretary of Education;
       ``(2) has a passage rate on the National Council Licensure 
     Examination for Registered Nurses of not less than 80 percent 
     for each of the 3 school years preceding submission of the 
     grant application; and
       ``(3) has a graduation rate (based on the number of 
     students in a class who graduate relative to, for a 
     baccalaureate program, the number of students who were 
     enrolled in the class at the beginning of junior year or, for 
     an associate degree program, the number of students who were 
     enrolled in the class at the end of the first year) of not 
     less than 80 percent for each of the 3 school years preceding 
     submission of the grant application.
       ``(e) Requirements.--The Secretary may award a grant under 
     this section to an eligible school of nursing only if the 
     school gives assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that, 
     for each school year for which the grant is awarded, the 
     school will comply with the following:
       ``(1) The school will maintain a passage rate on the 
     National Council Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses 
     of not less than 80 percent.
       ``(2) The school will maintain a graduation rate (as 
     described in subsection (d)(3)) of not less than 80 percent.
       ``(3)(A) Subject to subparagraphs (B) and (C), the first-
     year enrollment of full-time nursing students in the school 
     will exceed such enrollment for the preceding school year by 
     5 percent or 5 students, whichever is greater.
       ``(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the first school 
     year for which a school receives a grant under this section.
       ``(C) With respect to any school year, the Secretary may 
     waive application of subparagraph (A) if--
       ``(i) the physical facilities at the school involved limit 
     the school from enrolling additional students; or
       ``(ii) the school has increased enrollment in the school 
     (as described in subparagraph (A)) for each of the 2 
     preceding school years.
       ``(4) Not later than 1 year after receipt of the grant, the 
     school will formulate and implement a plan to accomplish at 
     least 2 of the following:
       ``(A) Establishing or significantly expanding an 
     accelerated baccalaureate degree nursing program designed to 
     graduate new nurses in 12 to 18 months.
       ``(B) Establishing cooperative intradisciplinary education 
     among schools of nursing with a view toward shared use of 
     technological resources, including information technology.
       ``(C) Establishing cooperative interdisciplinary training 
     between schools of nursing and schools of allied health, 
     medicine, dentistry, osteopathy, optometry, podiatry, 
     pharmacy, public health, or veterinary medicine, including 
     training for the use of the interdisciplinary team approach 
     to the delivery of health services.
       ``(D) Integrating core competencies on evidence-based 
     practice, quality improvements, and patient-centered care.
       ``(E) Increasing admissions, enrollment, and retention of 
     qualified individuals who are financially disadvantaged.
       ``(F) Increasing enrollment of minority and diverse student 
     populations.
       ``(G) Increasing enrollment of new graduate baccalaureate 
     nursing students in graduate programs that educate nurse 
     faculty members.
       ``(H) Developing post-baccalaureate residency programs to 
     prepare nurses for practice in specialty areas where nursing 
     shortages are most severe.
       ``(I) Increasing integration of geriatric content into the 
     core curriculum.
       ``(J) Partnering with economically disadvantaged 
     communities to provide nursing education.
       ``(K) Expanding the ability of nurse managed health centers 
     to provide clinical education training sites to nursing 
     students.
       ``(5) The school will submit an annual report to the 
     Secretary that includes updated information on the school 
     with respect to student enrollment, student retention, 
     graduation rates, passage rates on the National Council 
     Licensure Examination for Registered Nurses, the number of 
     graduates employed as nursing faculty or nursing care 
     providers within 12 months of graduation, and the number of 
     students who are accepted into graduate programs for further 
     nursing education.
       ``(6) The school will allow the Secretary to make on-site 
     inspections, and will comply with the Secretary's requests 
     for information, to determine the extent to which the school 
     is complying with the requirements of this section.
       ``(f) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary shall evaluate 
     the results of grants under this section and submit to the 
     Congress--
       ``(1) not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, an interim report on such results; 
     and
       ``(2) not later than the end of fiscal year 2010, a final 
     report on such results.
       ``(g) Application.--To seek a grant under this section, a 
     school nursing shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 
     and assurances as the Secretary may require.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) In general.--For the costs of carrying out this 
     section (except the costs described in paragraph (2)), there 
     are authorized to be appropriated $75,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2008, $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2009, and $95,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2010.
       ``(2) Administrative costs.--For the costs of administering 
     this section, including the costs of evaluating the results 
     of grants and submitting reports to the Congress, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010.''.
       (b) GAO Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the 
     United States shall conduct a study and submit a report to 
     the Congress on ways to increase participation in the nurse 
     faculty profession.
       (2) Contents of report.--The report required by paragraph 
     (1) shall include the following:
       (A) A discussion of the master's degree and doctoral degree 
     programs that are successful in placing graduates as faculty 
     in schools of nursing.
       (B) An examination of compensation disparities throughout 
     the nursing profession and compensation disparities between 
     higher education instructional faculty generally and higher 
     education instructional nursing faculty.

[[Page S1417]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 447. A bill to abolish the dealth penalty under Federal law; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Federal Death 
Penalty Abolition Act of 2007. This bill would abolish the death 
penalty at the Federal level. It would put an immediate halt to 
executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence 
for violations of Federal law.
  Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme 
Court, there have been 1,060 executions across the country, including 
three at the Federal level. During that same time period, 123 people on 
death row have been exonerated and released from death row. These 
people never should have been convicted in the first place.
  Consider those numbers. One thousand and sixty executions, and one 
hundred and twenty-three exonerations in the modern death penalty era. 
Had those exonerations not taken place, had those 123 people been 
executed, those executions would have represented an error rate of 
greater than 10 percent. That is more than an embarrassing statistic; 
it is a horrifying one, one that should have us all questioning the use 
of capital punishment in this country. In fact, since 1999 when I first 
introduced this bill, 46 death row inmates have been exonerated 
throughout the country.
  In the face of these numbers, the national debate on the death 
penalty has intensified. For the second year in a row, the number of 
executions, the number of death sentences imposed, and the size of the 
death row population have decreased as a growing number of voices have 
joined to express doubt about the use of capital punishment in America. 
The voices of those questioning the fairness of the death penalty have 
been heard from college campuses and courtrooms and podiums across the 
Nation, to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing room, to the United 
States Supreme Court. The American public understands that the death 
penalty raises serious and complex issues. The death penalty can no 
longer be exploited for political purposes. In fact, for the first 
time, a May 2006 Gallup Poll reported that more Americans prefer a 
sentence of life without parole over the death penalty when given a 
choice. If anything, the political consensus is that it is time for a 
change. We must not ignore these voices.
  In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in 1976 to allow capital 
punishment, the Federal Government first resumed death penalty 
prosecutions after enactment of a 1988 Federal law that provided for 
the death penalty for murder in the course of a drug-kingpin 
conspiracy. The Federal death penalty was then expanded significantly 
in 1994, when the omnibus crime bill expanded its use to a total of 
some 60 Federal offenses. And despite my best efforts to halt the 
expansion of the Federal death penalty, more and more provisions seem 
to be added every year. While the use of and confidence in the death 
penalty is decreasing overall, the Federal Government has been going in 
the opposite direction, making more defendants eligible for capital 
punishment and increasing the size of its Federal death row. Moreover, 
there are now six individuals on Federal death row from States that do 
not have capital punishment. The Federal Government is pulling in the 
wrong direction as the rest of the Nation moves toward a more just 
system.
  On this very day eight years ago, Governor George Ryan took the 
historic step of placing a moratorium on executions in Illinois and 
creating an independent, blue ribbon commission to review the State's 
death penalty system. The Commission conducted an extensive study of 
the death penalty in Illinois and released a report with 85 
recommendations for reform of the death penalty system. The Commission 
concluded that the death penalty system is not fair, and that the risk 
of executing the innocent is alarmingly real. Governor Ryan later 
pardoned four death row inmates and commuted the sentences of all 
remaining Illinois death row inmates to life in prison before he left 
office in January 2003.
  Illinois is not alone. Seven years ago, then Maryland Governor Parris 
Glendening learned of suspected racial disparities in the 
administration of the death penalty in Maryland. Governor Glendening 
did not look the other way. He commissioned the University of Maryland 
to conduct the most exhaustive study of Maryland's application of the 
death penalty in history. Then faced with the rapid approach of a 
scheduled execution, Governor Glendening acknowledged that it was 
unacceptable to allow executions to take place while the study he had 
ordered was not yet complete. So, in May 2002, he placed a moratorium 
on executions. Although Governor Bob Ehrlich lifted that moratorium and 
allowed executions to resume during his tenure, Governor Martin 
O'Malley has indicated that he would approve a legislative repeal of 
the death penalty and that he, like the majority in this country, 
favors life without parole.
  Other States also have taken important steps. New York's death 
penalty was overturned by a court decision in 2004 and has not been 
reinstated by the legislature, and New Jersey enacted a moratorium in 
2006. Along with New York and New Jersey, four other States that still 
have the death penalty technically on their books have not executed any 
individuals since 1976. In addition, there are 12 States, plus the 
District of Columbia, whose laws do not provide for capital punishment 
at all. And following in the footsteps of Illinois and Maryland, North 
Carolina and California both began legislative studies of their own 
capital punishment systems this past year.
  The more we learn about the death penalty through studies like those, 
the more reasons we have to oppose it. For example, the Maryland 
study--released in January 2003--contained findings that should startle 
us all. The study found that blacks accused of killing whites are more 
likely to receive a death sentence than blacks who kill blacks, or than 
white killers. According to the report, black offenders who kill whites 
are four times as likely to be sentenced to death as blacks who kill 
blacks, and twice as likely to get a death sentence as whites who kill 
whites.
  The Maryland and Illinois studies cannot be brushed aside as atypical 
or dismissed as revealing state-specific anomalies in an otherwise 
perfect system. Years of study have shown that the death penalty does 
little to deter crime, and that defendants' likelihood of being 
sentenced to death depends heavily on illegitimate factors such as 
whether they are rich or poor. Since reinstatement of the modern death 
penalty, 80 percent of murder victims in cases where death sentences 
were handed down were white, even though only 50 percent of murder 
victims are white. Nationwide, more than half of the death row inmates 
are African Americans or Hispanic Americans. There is evidence of 
racial disparities, inadequate counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and 
false scientific evidence in death penalty systems across the country.
  At least Maryland, Illinois, North Carolina, and California have 
begun the process of investigating the flaws in their own systems. But 
there are 36 other States that have death penalty provisions in their 
laws, 36 other States with systems that are most likely plagued with 
the same flaws. And these systems come at great additional cost to the 
taxpayers. For example, a 2005 report found that California's death 
penalty system costs taxpayers $114 million in additional costs each 
year. Similar reports detailing the extraordinary financial costs of 
the death penalty have been generated for States across the Nation.
  Moreover, there are growing concerns about the most common method of 
execution, lethal injection. These concerns are so grave that eight 
States and the Federal system all halted individual executions in 2006 
to work through these problems. And these numbers are growing. Just 
this last week, executions in North Carolina were halted because of 
challenges to lethal injection. More and more research is emerging that 
suggests that lethal injections are unnecessarily painful and cruel, 
and that this method of capital punishment--however sanitary or humane 
it may appear--is no less barbaric than the more antiquated methods 
lethal injection was designed to replace, such as the noose or the 
firing squad, no less horrific than the electric chair or the gas 
chamber.
  Nothing is more barbaric, of course, than the execution of an 
innocent person, and it is clearer than ever that the

[[Page S1418]]

risk is very real. Already, information has surfaced that suggests that 
two men put to death in the 1990s may have been innocent. This is a 
chilling prospect, one that illustrates the very grave danger in 
imposing the death penalty. The loss of just one innocent life through 
capital punishment should be enough to force all of us to stop and 
reconsider this penalty.
  And while we examine the flaws in our death penalty system, we cannot 
help but note that our use of the death penalty stands in stark 
contrast to the majority of nations, which have abolished the death 
penalty in law or practice. There are now 123 countries that have done 
so. In 2005, only China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia executed more people 
than we did. These countries, and others on the list of nations that 
actively use capital punishment, are countries that we often criticize 
for human rights abuses. The European Union denies membership in the 
alliance to those nations that use the death penalty. In fact, it 
passed a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional global 
abolition of the death penalty, and it specifically called on all 
States within the United States to abolish the death penalty. This is 
significant because it reflects the unanimous view of a group of 
nations with which the United States enjoys close relationships and 
shares common values. We should join with them and with the over 100 
other nations that have renounced this practice.
  We are a Nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of 
justice, liberty, equality and due process. We are a Nation that 
scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. Historically, we 
are one of the first Nations to speak out against torture and killings 
by foreign governments. We should hold our own system of justice to the 
highest standard.
  As a matter of justice, this is an issue that transcends political 
allegiances. A range of prominent voices in our country are raising 
serious questions about the death penalty, and they are not just voices 
of liberals, or of the faith community. They are the voices of former 
FBI Director William Sessions, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 
Reverend Pat Robertson, George Will, former Mississippi warden Donald 
Cabana, the Republican former Governor of Illinois, George Ryan, and 
the Democratic former Governor of Maryland, Parris Glendening. The 
voices of those questioning our application of the death penalty are 
growing in number, they are growing louder, and they are reflected in 
some of the decisions of the highest court of the land. In recent 
years, the Supreme Court has held that the execution of juvenile 
offenders and the mentally retarded is unconstitutional.
  As we begin a new year and a new Congress, I believe the continued 
use of the death penalty in the United States is beneath us. The death 
penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is 
immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right,'' applies here in 
the most fundamental way. Our Nation has long ago done away with other 
barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off the ears of 
criminals. Just we did away with these punishments as contrary to our 
humanity and ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty as we seek 
to spread peace and justice both here and overseas. It is not just a 
matter of morality. The continued viability of our criminal justice 
system as a truly just system that deserves the respect of our own 
people and the world requires that we do so. Our Nation's goal to 
remain the world's leading defender of freedom, liberty and equality 
demands that we do so.
  Abolishing the death penalty will not be an easy task. It will take 
patience, persistence, and courage. As we work to move forward in a 
rapidly changing world, let us leave this archaic practice behind.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing 
the death penalty in our great Nation. I also call on each State that 
authorizes the use of the death penalty to cease this practice. Let us 
together reject violence and restore fairness and integrity to our 
criminal justice system.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 447

       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 ``Federal Death Penalty 
     Abolition Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF FEDERAL LAWS PROVIDING FOR THE DEATH 
                   PENALTY.

       (a) Homicide-Related Offenses.--
       (1) Murder related to the smuggling of aliens.--Section 
     274(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 
     U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(B)(iv)) is amended by striking ``punished 
     by death or''.
       (2) Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related 
     facilities resulting in death.--Section 34 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death 
     penalty or''.
       (3) Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by 
     shooting.--Section 36(b)(2)(A) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (4) Murder committed at an airport serving international 
     civil aviation.--Section 37(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended, in the matter following paragraph (2), by 
     striking ``punished by death or''.
       (5) Murder committed using chemical weapons.--Section 
     229A(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in the paragraph heading, by striking ``Death penalty'' 
     and inserting ``Causing death''; and
       (B) by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (6) Civil rights offenses resulting in death.--Chapter 13 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in section 241, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to 
     death'';
       (B) in section 242, by striking ``, or may be sentenced to 
     death'';
       (C) in section 245(b), by striking ``, or may be sentenced 
     to death''; and
       (D) in section 247(d)(1), by striking ``, or may be 
     sentenced to death''.
       (7) Murder of a member of congress, an important executive 
     official, or a supreme court justice.--Section 351 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or (2) by death'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting a period; and
       (B) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or (2) by death'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting a period.
       (8) Death resulting from offenses involving transportation 
     of explosives, destruction of government property, or 
     destruction of property related to foreign or interstate 
     commerce.--Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (d), by striking ``or to the death 
     penalty'';
       (B) in subsection (f)(3), by striking ``subject to the 
     death penalty, or'';
       (C) in subsection (i), by striking ``or to the death 
     penalty''; and
       (D) in subsection (n), by striking ``(other than the 
     penalty of death)''.
       (9) Murder committed by use of a firearm or armor piercing 
     ammunition during commission of a crime of violence or a drug 
     trafficking crime.--Section 924 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (c)(5)(B)(i), by striking ``punished by 
     death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (j)(1), by striking ``by death or''.
       (10) Genocide.--Section 1091(b)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (11) First degree murder.--Section 1111(b) of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended by striking ``by death or''.
       (12) Murder by a federal prisoner.--Section 1118 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by death or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), in the third undesignated 
     paragraph--
       (i) by inserting ``or'' before ``an indeterminate''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or an unexecuted sentence of death''.
       (13) Murder of a state or local law enforcement official or 
     other person aiding in a federal investigation; murder of a 
     state correctional officer.--Section 1121 of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``by sentence of death 
     or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``or death''.
       (14) Murder during a kidnaping.--Section 1201(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (15) Murder during a hostage-taking.--Section 1203(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``death 
     or''.
       (16) Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a 
     witness, victim, or informant.--Section 1512(a)(2)(A) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``the 
     death penalty or''.
       (17) Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or 
     resulting in death.--Section 1716(j)(3) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``to the death penalty 
     or''.
       (18) Assassination or kidnaping resulting in the death of 
     the president or vice president.--Section 1751 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)--

[[Page S1419]]

       (i) by striking ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or (2) by death'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting a period; and
       (B) in subsection (d)--
       (i) by striking ``(1)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``, or (2) by death'' and all that follows 
     through the end of the subsection and inserting a period.
       (19) Murder for hire.--Section 1958(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (20) Murder involved in a racketeering offense.--Section 
     1959(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``death or''.
       (21) Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death.--
     Section 1992 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph 
     (10), by striking ``or subject to death,''; and
       (B) in subsection (b), in the matter following paragraph 
     (3), by striking ``, and if the offense resulted in the death 
     of any person, the person may be sentenced to death''.
       (22) Bank robbery-related murder or kidnaping.--Section 
     2113(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
     striking ``death or''.
       (23) Murder related to a carjacking.--Section 2119(3) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, or 
     sentenced to death''.
       (24) Murder related to aggravated child sexual abuse.--
     Section 2241(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``unless the death penalty is imposed,''.
       (25) Murder related to sexual abuse.--Section 2245 of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by 
     death or''.
       (26) Murder related to sexual exploitation of children.--
     Section 2251(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (27) Murder committed during an offense against maritime 
     navigation.--Section 2280(a)(1) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (28) Murder committed during an offense against a maritime 
     fixed platform.--Section 2281(a)(1) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or''.
       (29) Murder using devices or dangerous substances in waters 
     of the united states.--Section 2282A of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b); and
       (B) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (b) and (c), respectively.
       (30) Murder involving the transportation of explosive, 
     biological, chemical, or radioactive or nuclear materials.--
     Section 2283 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by striking subsection (b); and
       (B) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (b).
       (31) Murder involving the destruction of vessel or maritime 
     facility.--Section 2291(d) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``to the death penalty or''.
       (32) Murder of a united states national in another 
     country.--Section 2332(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``death or''.
       (33) Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.--
     Section 2332a of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), in the matter following paragraph 
     (4), by striking ``, and if death results shall be punished 
     by death'' and all that follows through the end of the 
     subsection and inserting a period; and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``, and if death results 
     shall be punished by death'' and all that follows through the 
     end of the subsection and inserting a period.
       (34) Murder by act of terrorism transcending national 
     boundaries.--Section 2332b(c)(1)(A) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``by death, or''.
       (35) Murder involving torture.--Section 2340A(a) of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``punished by 
     death or''.
       (36) Murder involving a war crime.--Section 2441(a) of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking ``, and 
     if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the 
     penalty of death''.
       (37) Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or 
     related murder of a federal, state, or local law enforcement 
     officer.--Section 408(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 
     U.S.C. 848(e)) is amended--
       (A) in the subsection heading, by striking ``Death 
     Penalty'' and inserting ``Intentional Killing''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) subparagraph (A), by striking ``, or may be sentenced 
     to death''; and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``, or may be 
     sentenced to death''.
       (38) Death resulting from aircraft hijacking.--Section 
     46502 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(2)(B), by striking ``put to death 
     or''; and
       (B) in subsection (b)(1)(B), by striking ``put to death 
     or''.
       (b) Non-Homicide Related Offenses.--
       (1) Espionage.--Section 794(a) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking ``punished by death or'' and all 
     that follows before the period and inserting ``imprisoned for 
     any term of years or for life''.
       (2) Treason.--Section 2381 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``shall suffer death, or''.
       (c) Title 10.--
       (1) Offenses.--
       (A) Conspiracy.--Section 881(b) of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 81(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), 
     is amended by striking ``, if death results'' and all that 
     follows through the end and inserting ``as a court-martial or 
     military commission may direct.''.
       (B) Desertion.--Section 885(c) of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 85(c)), is amended by striking ``, if the 
     offense is committed in time of war'' and all that follows 
     through the end and inserting ``as a court-martial may 
     direct.''.
       (C) Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior 
     commissioned officer.--Section 890 of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 90), is amended by striking ``, if the offense 
     is committed in time of war'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``as a court-martial may direct.''.
       (D) Mutiny or sedition.--Section 894(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 94(b)), is amended by striking ``by 
     death or such other punishment''.
       (E) Misbehavior before the enemy.--Section 899 of title 10, 
     United States Code (article 99), is amended by striking ``by 
     death or such other punishment''.
       (F) Subordinate compelling surrender.--Section 900 of title 
     10, United States Code (article 100), is amended by striking 
     ``by death or such other punishment''.
       (G) Improper use of countersign.--Section 901 of title 10, 
     United States Code (article 101), is amended by striking ``by 
     death or such other punishment''.
       (H) Forcing a safeguard.--Section 902 of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 102), is amended by striking ``suffer 
     death'' and all that follows and inserting ``be punished as a 
     court-martial may direct.''.
       (I) Aiding the enemy.--Section 904 of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 104), is amended by striking ``suffer 
     death or such other punishment as a court-martial or military 
     commission may direct'' and inserting ``be punished as a 
     court-martial or military commission may direct''.
       (J) Spies.--Section 906 of title 10, United States Code 
     (article 106), is amended by striking ``by death'' and 
     inserting ``by imprisonment for life''.
       (K) Espionage.--Section 906a of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 106a), is amended--
       (i) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection 
     (a) as subsections (b) and (c), respectively;
       (iii) in subsection (a)--

       (I) by striking ``(1)'';
       (II) by striking ``paragraph (2)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)'';
       (III) by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c)''; and
       (IV) by striking ``as a court-martial may direct,'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``as a court-martial may 
     direct.'';

       (iv) in subsection (b), as so redesignated--

       (I) by striking ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (a)''; and
       (II) by redesignating subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) as 
     paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), respectively; and

       (v) in subsection (c), as so redesignated, by striking 
     ``paragraph (1)'' and inserting ``subsection (a)''.
       (L) Improper hazarding of vessel.--The text of section 910 
     of title 10, United States Code (article 110), is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``Any person subject to this chapter who willfully and 
     wrongfully, or negligently, hazards or suffers to be hazarded 
     any vessel of the Armed Forces shall be punished as a court-
     martial may direct.''.
       (M) Misbehavior of sentinel.--Section 913 of title 10, 
     United States Code (article 113), is amended by striking ``, 
     if the offense is committed in time of war'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``as a court-martial may direct.''.
       (N) Murder.--Section 918 of title 10, United States Code 
     (article 118), is amended by striking ``death or imprisonment 
     for life as a court-martial may direct'' and inserting 
     ``imprisonment for life''.
       (O) Death or injury of an unborn child.--Section 919a(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, other than death,''; 
     and
       (ii) by striking paragraph (4).
       (P) Rape.--Section 920(a) of title 10, United States Code 
     (article 120(a)), is amended by striking ``by death or such 
     other punishment''.
       (Q) Crimes triable by military commission.--Section 950v(b) 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``by death or such other 
     punishment'';
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (iii) in paragraph (7), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (iv) in paragraph (8), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (v) in paragraph (9), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting

[[Page S1420]]

     ``as a military commission under this chapter may direct.'';
       (vi) in paragraph (11)(A), by striking ``, if death 
     results'' and all that follows and inserting ``as a military 
     commission under this chapter may direct.'';
       (vii) in paragraph (12)(A), by striking ``, if death 
     results'' and all that follows and inserting ``as a military 
     commission under this chapter may direct.'';
       (viii) in paragraph (13)(A), by striking ``, if death 
     results'' and all that follows and inserting ``as a military 
     commission under this chapter may direct.'';
       (ix) in paragraph (14), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (x) in paragraph (15), by striking ``by death or such other 
     punishment'';
       (xi) in paragraph (17), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (xii) in paragraph (23), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.'';
       (xiii) in paragraph (24), by striking ``, if death 
     results'' and all that follows and inserting ``as a military 
     commission under this chapter may direct.'';
       (xiv) in paragraph (27), by striking ``by death or such 
     other punishment''; and
       (xv) in paragraph (28), by striking ``, if death results'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``as a military commission 
     under this chapter may direct.''.
       (2) Jurisdictional and procedural matters.--
       (A) Dismissed officer's right to trial by court-martial.--
     Section 804(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 4(a) 
     of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by 
     striking ``or death''.
       (B) Courts-martial classified.--Section 816(1)(A) of title 
     10, United States Code (article 10(1)(A)), is amended by 
     striking ``or, in a case in which the accused may be 
     sentenced to a penalty of death'' and all that follows 
     through ``(article 25a)''.
       (C) Jurisdiction of general courts-martial.--Section 818 of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 18), is amended--
       (i) in the first sentence by striking ``including the 
     penalty of death when specifically authorized by this 
     chapter'' and inserting ``except death''; and
       (ii) by striking the third sentence.
       (D) Jurisdiction of special courts-martial.--Section 819 of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 19), is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``for any noncapital offense'' and 
     all that follows and inserting ``for any offense made 
     punishable by this chapter.''.
       (E) Jurisdiction of summary courts-martial.--Section 820 of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 20), is amended in the 
     first sentence by striking ``noncapital''.
       (F) Number of members in capital cases.--
       (i) In general.--Section 825a of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 25a), is repealed.
       (ii) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter V of chapter 47 of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 825a (article 25a).
       (G) Absent and additional members.--Section 829(b)(2) of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 29(b)(2)), is amended 
     by striking ``or, in a case in which the death penalty may be 
     adjudged'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
       (H) Statute of limitations.--Subsection (a) of section 843 
     of title 10, United States Code (article 43), is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) A person charged with an offense described in 
     paragraph (2) may be tried and punished at any time without 
     limitation.
       ``(2) An offense described in this paragraph is any offense 
     as follows:
       ``(A) Absence without leave or missing movement in time of 
     war.
       ``(B) Murder.
       ``(C) Rape.
       ``(D) A violation of section 881 of this title (article 81) 
     that results in death to one or more of the victims.
       ``(E) Desertion or attempt to desert in time of war.
       ``(F) A violation of section 890 of this title (article 90) 
     committed in time of war.
       ``(G) Attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to 
     suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
       ``(H) A violation of section 899 of this title (article 
     99).
       ``(I) A violation of section 900 of this title (article 
     100).
       ``(J) A violation of section 901 of this title (article 
     101).
       ``(K) A violation of section 902 of this title (article 
     102).
       ``(L) A violation of section 904 of this title (article 
     104).
       ``(M) A violation of section 906 of this title (article 
     106).
       ``(N) A violation of section 906a of this title (article 
     106a).
       ``(O) A violation of section 910 of this title (article 
     110) in which the person subject to this chapter willfully 
     and wrongfully hazarded or suffered to be hazarded any vessel 
     of the Armed Forces.
       ``(P) A violation of section 913 of this title (article 
     113) committed in time of war.''.
       (I) Pleas of accused.--Section 845(b) of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 45(b)), is amended--
       (i) by striking the first sentence; and
       (ii) by striking ``With respect to any other charge'' and 
     inserting ``With respect to any charge''.
       (J) Depositions.--Section 849 of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 49), is amended--
       (i) in subsection (d), by striking ``in any case not 
     capital''; and
       (ii) by striking subsections (e) and (f).
       (K) Admissibility of records of courts of inquiry.--Section 
     850 of title 10, United States Code (article 50), is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``not capital and''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``capital cases or''.
       (L) Number of votes required for conviction and sentencing 
     by court-martial.--Section 852 of title 10, United States 
     Code (article 52), is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

       (I) by striking paragraph (1);
       (II) by redesignating paragraph (2) as subsection (a); and
       (III) by striking ``any other offense'' and inserting ``any 
     offense''; and

       (ii) in subsection (b)--

       (I) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (II) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively.

       (M) Record of trial.--Section 854(c)(1)(A) of title 10, 
     United States Code (article 54(c)(1)(A)), is amended by 
     striking ``death,''.
       (N) Forfeiture of pay and allowances during confinement.--
     Section 858b(a)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code 
     (article 58b(a)(2)(A)), is amended by striking ``or death''.
       (O) Waiver or withdrawal of appeal.--Section 861 of title 
     10, United States Code (article 61), is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``except a case in which 
     the sentence as approved under section 860(c) of this title 
     (article 60(c)) includes death,''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``Except in a case in 
     which the sentence as approved under section 860(c) of this 
     title (article 60(c)) includes death, the accused'' and 
     inserting ``The accused''.
       (P) Review by court of criminal appeals.--Section 866(b) of 
     title 10, United States Code (article 66(b)), is amended--
       (i) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by inserting 
     ``in which'' after ``court-martial'';
       (ii) in paragraph (1), by striking ``in which the sentence, 
     as approved, extends to death,'' and inserting ``the 
     sentence, as approved, extends to''; and
       (iii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``except in the case of 
     a sentence extending to death,''.
       (Q) Review by court of appeals for the armed forces.--
     Section 867(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 
     67(a)), is amended--
       (i) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (ii) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively.
       (R) Execution of sentence.--Section 871 of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 71), is amended--
       (i) by striking subsection (a);
       (ii) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (a);
       (iii) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(b)(1) If a sentence extends to dismissal or a 
     dishonorable or bad conduct discharge and if the right of the 
     accused to appellate review is not waived, and an appeal is 
     not withdrawn, under section 861 of this title (article 61), 
     that part of the sentence extending to dismissal or a 
     dishonorable or bad conduct discharge may not be executed 
     until there is a final judgment as to the legality of the 
     proceedings (and with respect to dismissal, approval under 
     subsection (a)). A judgment as to legality of the proceedings 
     is final in such cases when review is completed by a Court of 
     Criminal Appeals and--
       ``(A) the time for the accused to file a petition for 
     review by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has 
     expired and the accused has not filed a timely petition for 
     such review and the case is not otherwise under review by 
     that Court;
       ``(B) such a petition is rejected by the Court of Appeals 
     for the Armed Forces; or
       ``(C) review is completed in accordance with the judgment 
     of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and--
       ``(i) a petition for a writ of certiorari is not filed 
     within the time limits prescribed by the Supreme Court;
       ``(ii) such a petition is rejected by the Supreme Court; or
       ``(iii) review is otherwise completed in accordance with 
     the judgment of the Supreme Court.
       ``(2) If a sentence extends to dismissal or a dishonorable 
     or bad conduct discharge and if the right of the accused to 
     appellate review is waived, or an appeal is withdrawn, under 
     section 861 of this title (article 61), that part of the 
     sentence extending to dismissal or a bad conduct or 
     dishonorable discharge may not be executed until review of 
     the case by a judge advocate (and any action on that review) 
     under section 864 of this title (article 64) is completed. 
     Any other part of a court-martial sentence may be ordered 
     executed by the convening authority or other person acting on 
     the case under section 860 of this title (article 60) when 
     approved by him under that section.'';
       (iv) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c); and
       (v) in subsection (c), as so redesignated, by striking ``, 
     except a sentence of death''.

[[Page S1421]]

       (S) General article.--Section 934 of title 10, United 
     States Code (article 134), is amended by striking ``crimes 
     and offenses not capital'' and inserting ``crimes and 
     offenses''
       (T) Jurisdiction of military commissions.--Section 948d(d) 
     of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     ``including the penalty of death'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``except death.''.
       (U) Number of members of military commissions.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 948m of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(a) Number of Members.--A military commission under this 
     chapter shall have at least 5 members.''.
       (V) Number of votes required for sentencing by military 
     commission.--Section 949m of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (b)--

       (I) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (II) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively; and

       (ii) by striking subsection (c).
       (W) Appellate referral for military commissions.--Section 
     950c of title 10, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``except a case in 
     which the sentence as approved under section 950b of this 
     title extends to death,''; and
       (ii) in subsection (c), by striking ``Except in a case in 
     which the sentence as approved under section 950b of this 
     title extends to death, the accused'' and inserting ``The 
     accused''.
       (X) Execution of sentence by military commissions.--
       (i) In general.--Section 950i of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--

       (I) in the section heading, by striking ``; PROCEDURES FOR 
     EXECUTION OF SENTENCE OF DEATH'';
       (II) by striking subsections (b) and (c);
       (III) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (b); 
     and
       (IV) in subsection (b), as so redesignated, by striking ``, 
     except a sentence of death''.

       (ii) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of subchapter VI of chapter 47A of title 10, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 950i and inserting the following new item:

``950i. Execution of sentence.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Repeal of criminal procedures relating to imposition of 
     death sentence.--
       (A) In general.--Chapter 228 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is repealed.
       (B) Clerical amendment.--The table of chapters for part II 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking the 
     item relating to chapter 228.
       (2) Other provisions.--
       (A) Interception of wire, oral, or electronic 
     communications.--Section 2516(1)(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``by death or''.
       (B) Release and detention pending judicial proceedings.--
     Chapter 207 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (i) in section 3142(f)(1)(B), by striking ``or death''; and
       (ii) in section 3146(b)(1)(A)(i), by striking ``death, life 
     imprisonment,'' and inserting ``life imprisonment''.
       (C) Venue in capital cases.--Chapter 221 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (i) by striking section 3235; and
       (ii) in the table of sections, by striking the item 
     relating to section 3235.
       (D) Period of limitations.--
       (i) In general.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by striking section 3281 and inserting the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3281. Offenses with no period of limitations

       ``An indictment may be found at any time without limitation 
     for the following offenses:
       ``(1) A violation of section 274(a)(1)(A) of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)) 
     resulting in the death of any person.
       ``(2) A violation of section 34 of this title.
       ``(3) A violation of section 36(b)(2)(A) of this title.
       ``(4) A violation of section 37(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(5) A violation of section 229A(a)(2) of this title.
       ``(6) A violation of section 241, 242, 245(b), or 247(a) of 
     this title that--
       ``(A) results in death; or
       ``(B) involved kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, 
     aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated 
     sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
       ``(7) A violation of subsection (b) or (d) of section 351 
     of this title.
       ``(8) A violation of section 794(a) of this title.
       ``(9) A violation of subsection (d), (f), or (i) of section 
     844 of this title that results in the death of any person 
     (including any public safety officer performing duties as a 
     direct or proximate result of conduct prohibited by such 
     subsection).
       ``(10) An offense punishable under subsection (c)(5)(B)(i) 
     or (j)(1) of section 924 of this title.
       ``(11) An offense punishable under section 1091(b)(1) of 
     this title.
       ``(12) A violation of section 1111 of this title that is 
     murder in the first degree.
       ``(13) A violation of section 1118 of this title.
       ``(14) A violation of subsection (a) or (b) of section 1121 
     of this title.
       ``(15) A violation of section 1201(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(16) A violation of section 1203(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(17) An offense punishable under section 1512(a)(3) of 
     this title that is murder (as that term is defined in section 
     1111 of this title).
       ``(18) An offense punishable under section 1716(j)(3) of 
     this title.
       ``(19) A violation of subsection (b) or (d) of section 1751 
     of this title.
       ``(20) A violation of section 1958(a) of this title that 
     results in death.
       ``(21) A violation of section 1959(a) of this title that is 
     murder.
       ``(22) A violation of subsection (a) (except for a 
     violation of paragraph (8), (9) or (10) of such subsection) 
     or (b) of section 1992 of this title that results in the 
     death of any person.
       ``(23) A violation of section 2113(e) of this title that 
     results in death.
       ``(24) An offense punishable under section 2119(3) of this 
     title.
       ``(25) An offense punishable under section 2245(a) of this 
     title.
       ``(26) A violation of section 2251 of this title that 
     results in the death of a person.
       ``(27) A violation of section 2280(a)(1) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(28) A violation of section 2281(a)(1) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(29) A violation of section 2282A(a) of this title that 
     causes the death of any person.
       ``(30) A violation of section 2283(a) of this title that 
     causes the death of any person.
       ``(31) An offense punishable under section 2291(d) of this 
     title.
       ``(32) An offense punishable under section 2332(a)(1) of 
     this title.
       ``(33) A violation of subsection (a) or (b) of section 
     2332a of this title that results in death.
       ``(34) An offense punishable under section 2332b(c)(1)(A) 
     of this title.
       ``(35) A violation of section 2340A(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of any person.
       ``(36) A violation of section 2381 of this title.
       ``(37) A violation of section 2441(a) of this title that 
     results in the death of the victim.
       ``(38) A violation of section 408(e) of the Controlled 
     Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 848(e)).
       ``(39) An offense punishable under subsection (a)(2)(B) or 
     (b)(1)(B) of section 46502 of title 49.''
       (ii) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     213 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 3281 and inserting the 
     following:

``3281. Offenses with no period of limitations.''.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no person may be sentenced to death or put to death on 
     or after the date of enactment of this Act for any violation 
     of Federal law.
       (b) Persons Sentenced Before Date of Enactment.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person 
     sentenced to death before the date of enactment of this Act 
     for any violation of Federal law shall serve a sentence of 
     life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. 
        Murray, and Mr. Specter):
  S. 449. A bill to amend title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
Streets Act of 1968 to provide standards and procedures to guide both 
State and local law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers 
during internal investigations, interrogation of law enforcement 
officers, and administrative disciplinary hearings, to ensure 
accountability of law enforcement officers, to guarantee the due 
process rights of law enforcement officers, and to require States to 
enact law enforcement discipline, accountability, and due process laws; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the State and Local Law 
Enforcement Discipline Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2007.
  These are trying times for the men and women on our front lines who 
provide our domestic security and public safety--our Nation's law 
enforcement personnel. Indeed, they face one of the most difficult work 
environments imaginable--an average of 165 police officers are killed 
in the line of duty every year. Our Nation's law enforcement officers 
put themselves in harms way on a daily basis to ensure the safety of 
their fellow citizens and the domestic security of our Nation. 
Nevertheless, many times these brave officers do not receive basic 
rights if they become involved in internal police investigations or 
administrative hearings. According to the National Association of 
Police Organizations, ``[i]n roughly half of the states in this 
country, officers enjoy some legal protections against false 
accusations and abusive conduct, but hundreds of thousands of officers 
have very limited due

[[Page S1422]]

process rights and confront limitations on their exercise of other 
rights, such as the right to engage in political activities.'' 
Similarly, the Fraternal Order of Police notes that, ``[i]n a startling 
number of jurisdictions throughout this country, law enforcement 
officers have no procedural or administrative protections whatsoever; 
in fact, they can be, and frequently are, summarily dismissed from 
their jobs without explanation. Officers who lose their careers due to 
administrative or political expediency almost always find it impossible 
to find new employment in public safety. An officer's reputation, once 
tarnished by accusation, is almost impossible to restore.''
  The legislation being introduced today, which is endorsed by the 
Fraternal Order of Police and of the National Association of Police 
Organizations, seeks to provide officers with certain basic protections 
in those jurisdictions where such workplace protections are not 
currently provided. First, this bill allows law enforcement officials 
to engage in political activities when they are off-duty. Second, it 
provides standards and procedures to guide State and local law 
enforcement agencies during internal investigations, interrogations, 
and administrative disciplinary hearings. Additionally, it calls upon 
States to develop and enforce these disciplinary procedures. The bill 
would preempt State laws which confer fewer rights than those provided 
for in the legislation, but it would not preempt any State or local 
laws that confer rights or protections that are equal to or exceed the 
rights and protections afforded in the bill. For example, my own State 
of Delaware has a law enforcement officers' bill of rights, and those 
procedures would not be impacted by the provisions of this bill.
  This bill will also include important provisions that will enhance 
the ability of citizens to hold their local police departments 
accountable. The legislation includes provisions that will ensure 
citizen complaints against police officers are investigated and that 
citizens are informed of the outcome of these investigations. The bill 
balances the rights of police officers with the rights of citizens to 
raise valid concerns about the conduct of some of these officers. In 
addition, I have consulted with constitutional experts who have opined 
that the bill is consistent with Congress' powers under the Commerce 
Clause and that it does not run afoul of the Supreme Court's Tenth 
Amendment jurisprudence.
  I would also like to note that I understand the objections that many 
management groups, including the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police's, have to this measure. I have discussed this with them, and 
I've pledged that their views will be heard and considered as this bill 
is debated in Congress. It is my view that we must bridge this gap. 
Without a meeting of the minds between police management and union 
officials, the enactment of a meaningful law enforcement officers' bill 
of rights will be difficult. Law enforcement officials are facing 
unprecedented challenges, and management and labor simply must work 
together on this issue and the numerous other issues facing the law 
enforcement community.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 449

       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 ``State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Discipline, Accountability, and Due Process Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND POLICY.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the rights of law enforcement officers to engage in 
     political activity or to refrain from engaging in political 
     activity, except when on duty, or to run as candidates for 
     public office, unless such service is found to be in conflict 
     with their service as officers, are activities protected by 
     the first amendment of the United States Constitution, as 
     applied to the States through the 14th amendment of the 
     United States Constitution, but these rights are often 
     violated by the management of State and local law enforcement 
     agencies;
       (2) a significant lack of due process rights of law 
     enforcement officers during internal investigations and 
     disciplinary proceedings has resulted in a loss of confidence 
     in these processes by many law enforcement officers, 
     including those unfairly targeted for their labor 
     organization activities or for their aggressive enforcement 
     of the laws, demoralizing many rank and file officers in 
     communities and States;
       (3) unfair treatment of officers has potentially serious 
     long-term consequences for law enforcement by potentially 
     deterring or otherwise preventing officers from carrying out 
     their duties and responsibilities effectively and fairly;
       (4) the lack of labor-management cooperation in 
     disciplinary matters and either the perception or the 
     actuality that officers are not treated fairly detrimentally 
     impacts the recruitment of and retention of effective 
     officers, as potential officers and experienced officers seek 
     other careers, which has serious implications and 
     repercussions for officer morale, public safety, and labor-
     management relations and strife and can affect interstate and 
     intrastate commerce, interfering with the normal flow of 
     commerce;
       (5) there are serious implications for the public safety of 
     the citizens and residents of the United States which 
     threatens the domestic tranquility of the United States 
     because of a lack of statutory protections to ensure--
       (A) the due process and political rights of law enforcement 
     officers;
       (B) fair and thorough internal investigations and 
     interrogations of and disciplinary proceedings against law 
     enforcement officers; and
       (C) effective procedures for receipt, review, and 
     investigation of complaints against officers, fair to both 
     officers and complainants; and
       (6) resolving these disputes and problems and preventing 
     the disruption of vital police services is essential to the 
     well-being of the United States and the domestic tranquility 
     of the Nation.
       (b) Declaration of Policy.--Congress declares that it is 
     the purpose of this Act and the policy of the United States 
     to--
       (1) protect the due process and political rights of State 
     and local law enforcement officers and ensure equality and 
     fairness of treatment among such officers;
       (2) provide continued police protection to the general 
     public;
       (3) provide for the general welfare and ensure domestic 
     tranquility; and
       (4) prevent any impediments to the free flow of commerce, 
     under the rights guaranteed under the United States 
     Constitution and Congress' authority thereunder.

     SEC. 3. DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND DUE PROCESS OF 
                   OFFICERS.

       (a) In General.--Part H of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
     Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3781 et seq.) 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 820. DISCIPLINE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND DUE PROCESS OF 
                   STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Disciplinary action.--The term `disciplinary action' 
     means any adverse personnel action, including suspension, 
     reduction in pay, rank, or other employment benefit, 
     dismissal, transfer, reassignment, unreasonable denial of 
     secondary employment, or similar punitive action taken 
     against a law enforcement officer.
       ``(2) Disciplinary hearing.--The term `disciplinary 
     hearing' means an administrative hearing initiated by a law 
     enforcement agency against a law enforcement officer, based 
     on an alleged violation of law, that, if proven, would 
     subject the law enforcement officer to disciplinary action.
       ``(3) Emergency suspension.--The term `emergency 
     suspension' means the temporary action by a law enforcement 
     agency of relieving a law enforcement officer from the active 
     performance of law enforcement duties without a reduction in 
     pay or benefits when the law enforcement agency, or an 
     official within that agency, determines that there is 
     probable cause, based upon the conduct of the law enforcement 
     officer, to believe that the law enforcement officer poses an 
     immediate threat to the safety of that officer or others or 
     the property of others.
       ``(4) Investigation.--The term `investigation'--
       ``(A) means an action taken to determine whether a law 
     enforcement officer violated a law by a public agency or a 
     person employed by a public agency, acting alone or in 
     cooperation with or at the direction of another agency, or a 
     division or unit within another agency, regardless of a 
     denial by such an agency that any such action is not an 
     investigation; and
       ``(B) includes--
       ``(i) asking questions of any other law enforcement officer 
     or non-law enforcement officer;
       ``(ii) conducting observations;
       ``(iii) reviewing and evaluating reports, records, or other 
     documents; and
       ``(iv) examining physical evidence.
       ``(5) Law enforcement officer.--The terms `law enforcement 
     officer' and `officer' have the meaning given the term `law 
     enforcement officer' in section 1204, except the term does 
     not include a law enforcement officer employed by the United 
     States, or any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     thereof.
       ``(6) Personnel record.--The term `personnel record' means 
     any document, whether in written or electronic form and 
     irrespective of location, that has been or may be used in 
     determining the qualifications of a

[[Page S1423]]

     law enforcement officer for employment, promotion, transfer, 
     additional compensation, termination or any other 
     disciplinary action.
       ``(7) Public agency and law enforcement agency.--The terms 
     `public agency' and `law enforcement agency' each have the 
     meaning given the term `public agency' in section 1204, 
     except the terms do not include the United States, or any 
     department, agency, or instrumentality thereof.
       ``(8) Summary punishment.--The term `summary punishment' 
     means punishment imposed--
       ``(A) for a violation of law that does not result in any 
     disciplinary action; or
       ``(B) for a violation of law that has been negotiated and 
     agreed upon by the law enforcement agency and the law 
     enforcement officer, based upon a written waiver by the 
     officer of the rights of that officer under subsection (i) 
     and any other applicable law or constitutional provision, 
     after consultation with the counsel or representative of that 
     officer.
       ``(b) Applicability.--
       ``(1) In general.--This section sets forth the due process 
     rights, including procedures, that shall be afforded a law 
     enforcement officer who is the subject of an investigation or 
     disciplinary hearing.
       ``(2) Nonapplicability.--This section does not apply in the 
     case of--
       ``(A) an investigation of specifically alleged conduct by a 
     law enforcement officer that, if proven, would constitute a 
     violation of a statute providing for criminal penalties; or
       ``(B) a nondisciplinary action taken in good faith on the 
     basis of the employment related performance of a law 
     enforcement officer.
       ``(c) Political Activity.--
       ``(1) Right to engage or not to engage in political 
     activity.--Except when on duty or acting in an official 
     capacity, a law enforcement officer shall not be prohibited 
     from engaging in political activity or be denied the right to 
     refrain from engaging in political activity.
       ``(2) Right to run for elective office.--A law enforcement 
     officer shall not be--
       ``(A) prohibited from being a candidate for an elective 
     office or from serving in such an elective office, solely 
     because of the status of the officer as a law enforcement 
     officer; or
       ``(B) required to resign or take an unpaid leave from 
     employment with a law enforcement agency to be a candidate 
     for an elective office or to serve in an elective office, 
     unless such service is determined to be in conflict with or 
     incompatible with service as a law enforcement officer.
       ``(3) Adverse personnel action.--An action by a public 
     agency against a law enforcement officer, including requiring 
     the officer to take unpaid leave from employment, in 
     violation of this subsection shall be considered an adverse 
     personnel action within the meaning of subsection (a)(1).
       ``(d) Effective Procedures for Receipt, Review, and 
     Investigation of Complaints Against Law Enforcement 
     Officers.--
       ``(1) Complaint process.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     effective date of this section, each law enforcement agency 
     shall adopt and comply with a written complaint procedure 
     that--
       ``(A) authorizes persons from outside the law enforcement 
     agency to submit written complaints about a law enforcement 
     officer to--
       ``(i) the law enforcement agency employing the law 
     enforcement officer; or
       ``(ii) any other law enforcement agency charged with 
     investigating such complaints;
       ``(B) sets forth the procedures for the investigation and 
     disposition of such complaints;
       ``(C) provides for public access to required forms and 
     other information concerning the submission and disposition 
     of written complaints; and
       ``(D) requires notification to the complainant in writing 
     of the final disposition of the complaint and the reasons for 
     such disposition.
       ``(2) Initiation of an investigation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     an investigation based on a complaint from outside the law 
     enforcement agency shall commence not later than 15 days 
     after the receipt of the complaint by--
       ``(i) the law enforcement agency employing the law 
     enforcement officer against whom the complaint has been made; 
     or
       ``(ii) any other law enforcement agency charged with 
     investigating such a complaint.
       ``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) does not apply if--
       ``(i) the law enforcement agency determines from the face 
     of the complaint that each allegation does not constitute a 
     violation of law; or
       ``(ii) the complainant fails to comply substantially with 
     the complaint procedure of the law enforcement agency 
     established under this section.
       ``(3) Complainant or victim conflict of interest.--The 
     complainant or victim of the alleged violation of law giving 
     rise to an investigation under this subsection may not 
     conduct or supervise the investigation or serve as an 
     investigator.
       ``(e) Notice of Investigation.--
       ``(1) In general.--Any law enforcement officer who is the 
     subject of an investigation shall be notified of the 
     investigation 24 hours before the commencement of questioning 
     of such officer or to otherwise being required to provide 
     information to an investigating agency.
       ``(2) Contents of notice.--Notice given under paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       ``(A) the nature and scope of the investigation;
       ``(B) a description of any allegation contained in a 
     written complaint;
       ``(C) a description of each violation of law alleged in the 
     complaint for which suspicion exists that the officer may 
     have engaged in conduct that may subject the officer to 
     disciplinary action; and
       ``(D) the name, rank, and command of the officer or any 
     other individual who will be conducting the investigation.
       ``(f) Rights of Law Enforcement Officers Prior to and 
     During Questioning Incidental to an Investigation.--If a law 
     enforcement officer is subjected to questioning incidental to 
     an investigation that may result in disciplinary action 
     against the officer, the following minimum safeguards shall 
     apply:
       ``(1) Counsel and representation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Any law enforcement officer under 
     investigation shall be entitled to effective counsel by an 
     attorney or representation by any other person who the 
     officer chooses, such as an employee representative, or both, 
     immediately before and during the entire period of any 
     questioning session, unless the officer consents in writing 
     to being questioned outside the presence of counsel or 
     representative.
       ``(B) Private consultation.--During the course of any 
     questioning session, the officer shall be afforded the 
     opportunity to consult privately with counsel or a 
     representative, if such consultation does not repeatedly and 
     unnecessarily disrupt the questioning period.
       ``(C) Unavailability of counsel.--If the counsel or 
     representative of the law enforcement officer is not 
     available within 24 hours of the time set for the 
     commencement of any questioning of that officer, the 
     investigating law enforcement agency shall grant a reasonable 
     extension of time for the law enforcement officer to obtain 
     counsel or representation.
       ``(2) Reasonable hours and time.--Any questioning of a law 
     enforcement officer under investigation shall be conducted at 
     a reasonable time when the officer is on duty, unless exigent 
     circumstances compel more immediate questioning, or the 
     officer agrees in writing to being questioned at a different 
     time, subject to the requirements of subsections (e) and 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(3) Place of questioning.--Unless the officer consents in 
     writing to being questioned elsewhere, any questioning of a 
     law enforcement officer under investigation shall take 
     place--
       ``(A) at the office of the individual conducting the 
     investigation on behalf of the law enforcement agency 
     employing the officer under investigation; or
       ``(B) the place at which the officer under investigation 
     reports for duty.
       ``(4) Identification of questioner.--Before the 
     commencement of any questioning, a law enforcement officer 
     under investigation shall be informed of--
       ``(A) the name, rank, and command of the officer or other 
     individual who will conduct the questioning; and
       ``(B) the relationship between the individual conducting 
     the questioning and the law enforcement agency employing the 
     officer under investigation.
       ``(5) Single questioner.--During any single period of 
     questioning of a law enforcement officer under investigation, 
     each question shall be asked by or through 1 individual.
       ``(6) Reasonable time period.--Any questioning of a law 
     enforcement officer under investigation shall be for a 
     reasonable period of time and shall allow reasonable periods 
     for the rest and personal necessities of the officer and the 
     counsel or representative of the officer, if such person is 
     present.
       ``(7) No threats, false statements, or promises to be 
     made.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     no threat against, false or misleading statement to, 
     harassment of, or promise of reward to a law enforcement 
     officer under investigation shall be made to induce the 
     officer to answer any question, give any statement, or 
     otherwise provide information.
       ``(B) Exception.--The law enforcement agency employing a 
     law enforcement officer under investigation may require the 
     officer to make a statement relating to the investigation by 
     explicitly threatening disciplinary action, including 
     termination, only if--
       ``(i) the officer has received a written grant of use and 
     derivative use immunity or transactional immunity by a person 
     authorized to grant such immunity; and
       ``(ii) the statement given by the law enforcement officer 
     under such an immunity may not be used in any subsequent 
     criminal proceeding against that officer.
       ``(8) Recording.--
       ``(A) In general.--All questioning of a law enforcement 
     officer under an investigation shall be recorded in full, in 
     writing or by electronic device, and a copy of the transcript 
     shall be provided to the officer under investigation before 
     any subsequent period of questioning or the filing of any 
     charge against that officer.
       ``(B) Separate recording.--To ensure the accuracy of the 
     recording, an officer may utilize a separate electronic 
     recording device, and a copy of any such recording (or

[[Page S1424]]

     the transcript) shall be provided to the public agency 
     conducting the questioning, if that agency so requests.
       ``(9) Use of honesty testing devices prohibited.--No law 
     enforcement officer under investigation may be compelled to 
     submit to the use of a lie detector, as defined in section 2 
     of the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 (29 U.S.C. 
     2001).
       ``(g) Notice of Investigative Findings and Disciplinary 
     Recommendation and Opportunity to Submit a Written 
     Response.--
       ``(1) Notice.--Not later than 30 days after the conclusion 
     of an investigation under this section, the person in charge 
     of the investigation or the designee of that person shall 
     notify the law enforcement officer who was the subject of the 
     investigation, in writing, of the investigative findings and 
     any recommendations for disciplinary action.
       ``(2) Opportunity to submit written response.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after receipt of 
     a notification under paragraph (1), and before the filing of 
     any charge seeking the discipline of such officer or the 
     commencement of any disciplinary proceeding under subsection 
     (h), the law enforcement officer who was the subject of the 
     investigation may submit a written response to the findings 
     and recommendations included in the notification.
       ``(B) Contents of response.--The response submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) may include references to additional 
     documents, physical objects, witnesses, or any other 
     information that the law enforcement officer believes may 
     provide exculpatory evidence.
       ``(h) Disciplinary Hearings.--
       ``(1) Notice of opportunity for hearing.--Except in a case 
     of summary punishment or emergency suspension (subject to 
     subsection (k)), before the imposition of any disciplinary 
     action the law enforcement agency shall notify the officer 
     that the officer is entitled to a due process hearing by an 
     independent and impartial hearing officer or board.
       ``(2) Requirement of determination of violation.--No 
     disciplinary action may be taken against a law enforcement 
     officer unless an independent and impartial hearing officer 
     or board determines, after a hearing and in accordance with 
     the requirements of this subsection, that the law enforcement 
     officer committed a violation of law.
       ``(3) Time limit.--No disciplinary charge may be brought 
     against a law enforcement officer unless--
       ``(A) the charge is filed not later than the earlier of--
       ``(i) 1 year after the date on which the law enforcement 
     agency filing the charge had knowledge or reasonably should 
     have had knowledge of an alleged violation of law; or
       ``(ii) 90 days after the commencement of an investigation; 
     or
       ``(B) the requirements of this paragraph are waived in 
     writing by the officer or the counsel or representative of 
     the officer.
       ``(4) Notice of hearing.--Unless waived in writing by the 
     officer or the counsel or representative of the officer, not 
     later than 30 days after the filing of a disciplinary charge 
     against a law enforcement officer, the law enforcement agency 
     filing the charge shall provide written notification to the 
     law enforcement officer who is the subject of the charge, 
     of--
       ``(A) the date, time, and location of any disciplinary 
     hearing, which shall be scheduled in cooperation with the law 
     enforcement officer, or the counsel or representative of the 
     officer, and which shall take place not earlier than 30 days 
     and not later than 60 days after notification of the hearing 
     is given to the law enforcement officer under investigation;
       ``(B) the name and mailing address of the independent and 
     impartial hearing officer, or the names and mailing addresses 
     of the independent and impartial hearing board members; and
       ``(C) the name, rank, command, and address of the law 
     enforcement officer prosecuting the matter for the law 
     enforcement agency, or the name, position, and mailing 
     address of the person prosecuting the matter for a public 
     agency, if the prosecutor is not a law enforcement officer.
       ``(5) Access to documentary evidence and investigative 
     file.--Unless waived in writing by the law enforcement 
     officer or the counsel or representative of that officer, not 
     later than 15 days before a disciplinary hearing described in 
     paragraph (4)(A), the law enforcement officer shall be 
     provided with--
       ``(A) a copy of the complete file of the pre-disciplinary 
     investigation; and
       ``(B) access to and, if so requested, copies of all 
     documents, including transcripts, records, written 
     statements, written reports, analyses, and electronically 
     recorded information that--
       ``(i) contain exculpatory information;
       ``(ii) are intended to support any disciplinary action; or
       ``(iii) are to be introduced in the disciplinary hearing.
       ``(6) Examination of physical evidence.--Unless waived in 
     writing by the law enforcement officer or the counsel or 
     representative of that officer--
       ``(A) not later than 15 days before a disciplinary hearing, 
     the prosecuting agency shall notify the law enforcement 
     officer or the counsel or representative of that officer of 
     all physical, non-documentary evidence; and
       ``(B) not later than 10 days before a disciplinary hearing, 
     the prosecuting agency shall provide a reasonable date, time, 
     place, and manner for the law enforcement officer or the 
     counsel or representative of the law enforcement officer to 
     examine the evidence described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(7) Identification of witnesses.--Unless waived in 
     writing by the law enforcement officer or the counsel or 
     representative of the officer, not later than 15 days before 
     a disciplinary hearing, the prosecuting agency shall notify 
     the law enforcement officer or the counsel or representative 
     of the officer, of the name and address of each witness for 
     the law enforcement agency employing the law enforcement 
     officer.
       ``(8) Representation.--During a disciplinary hearing, the 
     law enforcement officer who is the subject of the hearing 
     shall be entitled to due process, including--
       ``(A) the right to be represented by counsel or a 
     representative;
       ``(B) the right to confront and examine all witnesses 
     against the officer; and
       ``(C) the right to call and examine witnesses on behalf of 
     the officer.
       ``(9) Hearing board and procedure.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State or local government agency, 
     other than the law enforcement agency employing the officer 
     who is subject of the disciplinary hearing, shall--
       ``(i) determine the composition of an independent and 
     impartial disciplinary hearing board;
       ``(ii) appoint an independent and impartial hearing 
     officer; and
       ``(iii) establish such procedures as may be necessary to 
     comply with this section.
       ``(B) Peer representation on disciplinary hearing board.--A 
     disciplinary hearing board that includes employees of the law 
     enforcement agency employing the law enforcement officer who 
     is the subject of the hearing, shall include not less than 1 
     law enforcement officer of equal or lesser rank to the 
     officer who is the subject of the hearing.
       ``(10) Summonses and subpoenas.--
       ``(A) In general.--The disciplinary hearing board or 
     independent hearing officer--
       ``(i) shall have the authority to issue summonses or 
     subpoenas, on behalf of--

       ``(I) the law enforcement agency employing the officer who 
     is the subject of the hearing; or
       ``(II) the law enforcement officer who is the subject of 
     the hearing; and

       ``(ii) upon written request of either the law enforcement 
     agency or the officer, shall issue a summons or subpoena, as 
     appropriate, to compel the appearance and testimony of a 
     witness or the production of documentary evidence.
       ``(B) Effect of failure to comply with summons or 
     subpoena.--With respect to any failure to comply with a 
     summons or a subpoena issued under subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) the disciplinary hearing officer or board shall 
     petition a court of competent jurisdiction to issue an order 
     compelling compliance; and
       ``(ii) subsequent failure to comply with such a court order 
     issued pursuant to a petition under clause (i) shall--

       ``(I) be subject to contempt of a court proceedings 
     according to the laws of the jurisdiction within which the 
     disciplinary hearing is being conducted; and
       ``(II) result in the recess of the disciplinary hearing 
     until the witness becomes available to testify and does 
     testify or is held in contempt.

       ``(11) Closed hearing.--A disciplinary hearing shall be 
     closed to the public unless the law enforcement officer who 
     is the subject of the hearing requests, in writing, that the 
     hearing be open to specified individuals or to the general 
     public.
       ``(12) Recording.--All aspects of a disciplinary hearing, 
     including pre-hearing motions, shall be recorded by audio 
     tape, video tape, or transcription.
       ``(13) Sequestration of witnesses.--Either side in a 
     disciplinary hearing may move for and be entitled to 
     sequestration of witnesses.
       ``(14) Testimony under oath.--The hearing officer or board 
     shall administer an oath or affirmation to each witness, who 
     shall testify subject to the laws of perjury of the State in 
     which the disciplinary hearing is being conducted.
       ``(15) Final decision on each charge.--
       ``(A) In general.--At the conclusion of the presentation of 
     all the evidence and after oral or written argument, the 
     hearing officer or board shall deliberate and render a 
     written final decision on each charge.
       ``(B) Final decision isolated to charge brought.--The 
     hearing officer or board may not find that the law 
     enforcement officer who is the subject of the hearing is 
     liable for disciplinary action for any violation of law as to 
     which the officer was not charged.
       ``(16) Burden of persuasion and standard of proof.--The 
     burden of persuasion or standard of proof of the prosecuting 
     agency shall be--
       ``(A) by clear and convincing evidence as to each charge 
     alleging false statement or representation, fraud, 
     dishonesty, deceit, moral turpitude, or criminal behavior on 
     the part of the law enforcement officer who is the subject of 
     the charge; and
       ``(B) by a preponderance of the evidence as to all other 
     charges.
       ``(17) Factors of just cause to be considered by the 
     hearing officer or board.--A law enforcement officer who is 
     the subject of a disciplinary hearing shall not be found 
     guilty of any charge or subjected to any disciplinary action 
     unless the disciplinary hearing board or independent hearing 
     officer finds that--
       ``(A) the officer who is the subject of the charge could 
     reasonably be expected to have

[[Page S1425]]

     had knowledge of the probable consequences of the alleged 
     conduct set forth in the charge against the officer;
       ``(B) the rule, regulation, order, or procedure that the 
     officer who is the subject of the charge allegedly violated 
     is reasonable;
       ``(C) the charging party, before filing the charge, made a 
     reasonable, fair, and objective effort to discover whether 
     the officer did in fact violate the rule, regulation, order, 
     or procedure as charged;
       ``(D) the charging party did not conduct the investigation 
     arbitrarily or unfairly, or in a discriminatory manner, 
     against the officer who is the subject of the charge, and the 
     charge was brought in good faith; and
       ``(E) the proposed disciplinary action reasonably relates 
     to the seriousness of the alleged violation and to the record 
     of service of the officer who is the subject of the charge.
       ``(18) No commission of a violation.--If the officer who is 
     the subject of the disciplinary hearing is found not to have 
     committed the alleged violation--
       ``(A) the matter is concluded;
       ``(B) no disciplinary action may be taken against the 
     officer;
       ``(C) the personnel record of that officer shall not 
     contain any reference to the charge for which the officer was 
     found not guilty; and
       ``(D) any pay and benefits lost or deferred during the 
     pendency of the disposition of the charge shall be restored 
     to the officer as though no charge had ever been filed 
     against the officer, including salary or regular pay, 
     vacation, holidays, longevity pay, education incentive pay, 
     shift differential, uniform allowance, lost overtime, or 
     other premium pay opportunities, and lost promotional 
     opportunities.
       ``(19) Commission of a violation.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the officer who is the subject of the 
     charge is found to have committed the alleged violation, the 
     hearing officer or board shall make a written recommendation 
     of a penalty to the law enforcement agency employing the 
     officer or any other governmental entity that has final 
     disciplinary authority, as provided by applicable State or 
     local law.
       ``(B) Penalty.--The employing agency or other governmental 
     entity may not impose a penalty greater than the penalty 
     recommended by the hearing officer or board.
       ``(20) Appeal.--Any officer who has been found to have 
     committed an alleged violation may appeal from a final 
     decision of a hearing officer or hearing board to a court of 
     competent jurisdiction or to an independent neutral 
     arbitrator to the extent available in any other 
     administrative proceeding under applicable State or local 
     law, or a collective bargaining agreement.
       ``(i) Waiver of Rights.--
       ``(1) In general.--An officer who is notified that the 
     officer is under investigation or is the subject of a charge 
     may, after such notification, waive any right or procedure 
     guaranteed by this section.
       ``(2) Written waiver.--A written waiver under this 
     subsection shall be--
       ``(A) in writing; and
       ``(B) signed by--
       ``(i) the officer, who shall have consulted with counsel or 
     a representative before signing any such waiver; or
       ``(ii) the counsel or representative of the officer, if 
     expressly authorized by subsection (h).
       ``(j) Summary Punishment.--Nothing in this section shall 
     preclude a public agency from imposing summary punishment.
       ``(k) Emergency Suspension.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to preclude a law enforcement agency from imposing 
     an emergency suspension on a law enforcement officer, except 
     that any such suspension shall--
       ``(1) be followed by a hearing in accordance with the 
     requirements of subsection (h); and
       ``(2) not deprive the affected officer of any pay or 
     benefit.
       ``(l) Retaliation for Exercising Rights.--There shall be no 
     imposition of, or threat of, disciplinary action or other 
     penalty against a law enforcement officer for the exercise of 
     any right provided to the officer under this section.
       ``(m) Other Remedies Not Impaired.--Nothing in this section 
     may be construed to impair any other right or remedy that a 
     law enforcement officer may have under any constitution, 
     statute, ordinance, order, rule, regulation, procedure, 
     written policy, collective bargaining agreement, or any other 
     source.
       ``(n) Declaratory or Injunctive Relief.--A law enforcement 
     officer who is aggrieved by a violation of, or is otherwise 
     denied any right afforded by, the Constitution of the United 
     States, a State constitution, this section, or any 
     administrative rule or regulation promulgated pursuant 
     thereto, may file suit in any Federal or State court of 
     competent jurisdiction for declaratory or injunctive relief 
     to prohibit the law enforcement agency from violating or 
     otherwise denying such right, and such court shall have 
     jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain such a violation 
     or denial.
       ``(o) Protection of Law Enforcement Officer Personnel 
     Files.--
       ``(1) Restrictions on adverse material maintained in 
     officers' personnel records.--
       ``(A) In general.--Unless the officer has had an 
     opportunity to review and comment, in writing, on any adverse 
     material generated after the effective date of the State and 
     Local Law Enforcement Discipline, Accountability, and Due 
     Process Act of 2007 to be included in a personnel record 
     relating to the officer, no law enforcement agency or other 
     governmental entity may--
       ``(i) include the adverse material in that personnel 
     record; or
       ``(ii) possess or maintain control over the adverse 
     material in any form as a personnel record within the law 
     enforcement agency or elsewhere in the control of the 
     employing governmental entity.
       ``(B) Responsive material.--Any responsive material 
     provided by an officer to adverse material included in a 
     personnel record pertaining to the officer shall be--
       ``(i) attached to the adverse material; and
       ``(ii) released to any person or entity to whom the adverse 
     material is released in accordance with law and at the same 
     time as the adverse material is released.
       ``(2) Right to inspection of, and restrictions on access to 
     information in, the officer's own personnel records.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a law 
     enforcement officer shall have the right to inspect all of 
     the personnel records of the officer not less than annually.
       ``(B) Restrictions.--A law enforcement officer shall not 
     have access to information in the personnel records of the 
     officer if the information--
       ``(i) relates to the investigation of alleged conduct that, 
     if proven, would constitute or have constituted a definite 
     violation of a statute providing for criminal penalties, but 
     as to which no formal charge was brought;
       ``(ii) contains letters of reference for the officer;
       ``(iii) contains any portion of a test document other than 
     the results;
       ``(iv) is of a personal nature about another officer, and 
     if disclosure of that information in non-redacted form would 
     constitute a clearly unwarranted intrusion into the privacy 
     rights of that other officer; or
       ``(v) is relevant to any pending claim brought by or on 
     behalf of the officer against the employing agency of that 
     officer that may be discovered in any judicial or 
     administrative proceeding between the officer and the 
     employer of that officer.
       ``(p) States' Rights.--
       ``(1) In general.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed--
       ``(A) to preempt any State or local law, or any provision 
     of a State or local law, in effect on the date of enactment 
     of the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline, 
     Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2007, that confers a 
     right or a protection that equals or exceeds the right or 
     protection afforded by this section; or
       ``(B) to prohibit the enactment of any State or local law 
     that confers a right or protection that equals or exceeds a 
     right or protection afforded by this section.
       ``(2) State or local laws preempted.--A State or local law, 
     or any provision of a State or local law, that confers fewer 
     rights or provides less protection for a law enforcement 
     officer than any provision in this section shall be preempted 
     by this section.
       ``(q) Collective Bargaining Agreements.--Nothing in this 
     section may be construed to--
       ``(1) preempt any provision in a mutually agreed-upon 
     collective bargaining agreement, in effect on the date of 
     enactment of the State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline, 
     Accountability, and Due Process Act of 2007, that provides 
     for substantially the same or a greater right or protection 
     afforded under this section; or
       ``(2) prohibit the negotiation of any additional right or 
     protection for an officer who is subject to any collective 
     bargaining agreement.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The table of contents of title I 
     of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 
     U.S.C. 3711 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 819 the following:

``Sec. 820. Discipline, accountability, and due process of State and 
              local law enforcement officers.''.

     SEC. 4. PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL CONTROL OVER STATE AND LOCAL 
                   CRIMINAL JUSTICE AGENCIES.

       Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act 
     shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, 
     officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any 
     direction, supervision, or control of any police force or any 
     criminal justice agency of any State or any political 
     subdivision thereof.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect with 
     respect to each State on the earlier of--
       (1) 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (2) the conclusion of the second legislative session of the 
     State that begins on or after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Feingold, 
        and Mr. Durbin):
  S. 451. A bill to establish a National Foreign language Coordination 
Council; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to reintroduce the National 
Foreign Language Coordination Act with my colleagues Senators Thad 
Cochran, Christopher Dodd, and Russell Feingold. We are joined by

[[Page S1426]]

Representative Brian Baird, who is offering a companion bill in the 
House of Representatives today as well.
  The legislation we introduce today would implement a key 
recommendation of the 2004 Department of Defense, DOD, National 
Language Conference to establish a National Foreign Language 
Coordination Council, chaired by a National Language Director. An 
integrated foreign language strategy and sustained leadership within 
the Federal Government is needed to address the lack of foreign 
language proficient speakers in government and in business. Without 
such a coordinated strategy, I fear that the country's national and 
economic security will be at greater risk.
  The communications failures of 9/11 clearly demonstrate that we can 
no longer ignore the consequence of our citizens being unable to 
converse fluently in languages other than English. The fact that only 
9.3 percent of all Americans speak both their native languages and 
another language fluently, compared with 56 percent of people in the 
European Union is troubling. The Iraq Study Group reported last month 
that of the 1,000 American embassy employees in Baghdad, only 33 speak 
Arabic, and just 6 of them are fluent in this critical language. The 
shortfall of skilled linguists prompted the Iraq Study Group to 
recommend that ``The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and 
the Director of National Intelligence should accord the highest 
possible priority to professional language proficiency and cultural 
training, in general and specifically for U.S. officers and personnel 
about to be assigned to Iraq.''
  The Federal Government has an essential role to play by collaborating 
with educators, State and local governments, foreign language 
associations, and the private sector to increase the number of 
Americans who speak and understand foreign languages. A National 
Foreign Language Coordination Council brings these diverse interests 
together to shape a much needed, comprehensive approach. Just as I have 
advocated the need for deputy secretaries for management at the 
Departments of Defense and Homeland Security to direct and sustain 
management leadership, I envision a National Language Director to be 
responsible for maintaining and leading a cooperative effort to 
strengthen our foreign language capabilities.
  Our Nation's security is at risk without a sufficient number of 
foreign language proficient individuals. Counterterrorism intelligence 
will go untranslated and opportunities will be missed. Equally 
important is preserving the economic competitiveness of the United 
States. Globalization means that Americans must compete for jobs in a 
marketplace no longer confined to the boundaries of the United States. 
In short, both the security and economic vitality of the United States 
are tied to improving foreign language education. However, according to 
the Committee on Economic Development, many of our schools do not have 
foreign language programs that address the educational challenges of 
the 21st century. Many American students lack sufficient knowledge of 
other countries, languages, and cultures to compete effectively in the 
global marketplace.

  Specifically, our bill ensures that the key recommendations of the 
DOD National Language Conference will be implemented by: Developing 
policies and programs that build the Nation's language and cultural 
understanding capability; engaging Federal, State, and local agencies 
and the private sector in solutions; developing language and cultural 
competency across public and private sectors; developing language 
skills in a wide range of critical languages; strengthening our 
education system, programs, and tools in foreign languages and 
cultures; and integrating language training into career fields and 
increase the number of language professionals.
  Last week, the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, 
the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, which I chair, 
held a hearing on the Federal Government's language strategy. Dr. Diane 
Birckbich1er, director of the Foreign Language Center and chair of the 
Departments of French and Italian at Ohio State University, testified 
that ``if there is a national language strategy, it isn't very well 
known.'' She further recommended the development of a national language 
policy to create a language-ready workforce for the future.
  To strengthen the role of the United States in the world, our country 
must ensure that there is a sufficient number of individuals who are 
proficient in languages other than their native languages. Increasing 
foreign language skills enhances national security, just as increasing 
foreign language skills enhances the ability of Americans to compete on 
a more global playing field.
  I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and unanimous consent 
that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 451

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

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL FOREIGN LANGUAGE 
                   COORDINATION COUNCIL.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Foreign Language Coordination Act of 2007''.
       (b) Establishment.--There is established in the Executive 
     Office of the President a National Foreign Language 
     Coordination Council (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Council'').
       (c) Membership.--The Council shall consist of the following 
     members or their designees:
       (1) The National Language Director, who shall serve as the 
     chairperson of the Council.
       (2) The Secretary of Education.
       (3) The Secretary of Defense.
       (4) The Secretary of State.
       (5) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
       (6) The Attorney General.
       (7) The Director of National Intelligence.
       (8) The Secretary of Labor.
       (9) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
       (10) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
       (11) The Secretary of Commerce.
       (12) The Secretary of Health and Human Services.
       (13) The Secretary of the Treasury.
       (14) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
       (15) The Secretary of Agriculture.
       (16) The Chairman and President of the Export-Import Bank 
     of the United States.
       (17) The heads of such other Federal agencies as the 
     Council considers appropriate.
       (d) Responsibilities.--
       (1) In general.--The Council shall be charged with--
       (A) overseeing, coordinating, and implementing the National 
     Security Language Initiative;
       (B) developing a national foreign language strategy, 
     building upon the efforts of the National Security Language 
     Initiative, within 18 months after the date of the enactment 
     of this section, in consultation with--
       (i) State and local government agencies;
       (ii) academic sector institutions;
       (iii) foreign language related interest groups;
       (iv) business associations;
       (v) industry;
       (vi) heritage associations; and
       (vii) other relevant stakeholders;
       (C) conducting a survey of the status of Federal agency 
     foreign language and area expertise and agency needs for such 
     expertise; and
       (D) monitoring the implementation of such strategy 
     through--
       (i) application of current and recently enacted laws; and
       (ii) the promulgation and enforcement of rules and 
     regulations.
       (2) Strategy content.--The strategy developed under 
     paragraph (1) shall include--
       (A) recommendations for amendments to title 5, United 
     States Code, in order to improve the ability of the Federal 
     Government to recruit and retain individuals with foreign 
     language proficiency and provide foreign language training 
     for Federal employees;
       (B) the long term goals, anticipated effect, and needs of 
     the National Security Language Initiative;
       (C) identification of crucial priorities across all 
     sectors;
       (D) identification and evaluation of Federal foreign 
     language programs and activities, including--
       (i) any duplicative or overlapping programs that may impede 
     efficiency;
       (ii) recommendations on coordination;
       (iii) program enhancements; and
       (iv) allocation of resources so as to maximize use of 
     resources;
       (E) needed national policies and corresponding legislative 
     and regulatory actions in support of, and allocation of 
     designated resources to, promising programs and initiatives 
     at all levels (Federal, State, and local), especially in the 
     less commonly taught languages that are seen as critical for 
     national security and global competitiveness during the next 
     20 to 50 years;
       (F) effective ways to increase public awareness of the need 
     for foreign language skills and career paths in all sectors 
     that can employ those skills, with the objective of 
     increasing support for foreign language study among--

[[Page S1427]]

       (i) Federal, State, and local leaders;
       (ii) students;
       (iii) parents;
       (iv) elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational 
     institutions; and
       (v) employers;
       (G) recommendations for incentives for related educational 
     programs, including foreign language teacher training;
       (H) coordination of cross-sector efforts, including public-
     private partnerships;
       (I) coordination initiatives to develop a strategic posture 
     for language research and recommendations for funding for 
     applied foreign language research into issues of national 
     concern;
       (J) recommendations for assistance for--
       (i) the development of foreign language achievement 
     standards; and
       (ii) corresponding assessments for the elementary, 
     secondary, and postsecondary education levels, including the 
     National Assessment of Educational Progress in foreign 
     languages;
       (K) recommendations for development of--
       (i) language skill-level certification standards;
       (ii) frameworks for pre-service and professional 
     development study for those who teach foreign language;
       (iii) suggested graduation criteria for foreign language 
     studies and appropriate non-language studies, such as--

       (I) international business;
       (II) national security;
       (III) public administration;
       (IV) health care;
       (V) engineering;
       (VI) law;
       (VII) journalism; and
       (VIII) sciences;

       (L) identification of and means for replicating best 
     practices at all levels and in all sectors, including best 
     practices from the international community; and
       (M) recommendations for overcoming barriers in foreign 
     language proficiency.
       (3) National security language initiative.--The term 
     ``National Security Language Initiative'' means the 
     comprehensive national plan of the President announced on 
     January 5, 2006, and under the direction of the Secretaries 
     of State, Education, and Defense and the Director of National 
     Intelligence to expand foreign language education for 
     national security purposes in the United States.
       (e) Submission of Strategy to President and Congress.--Not 
     later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this 
     section, the Council shall prepare and transmit to the 
     President and the relevant committees of Congress the 
     strategy required under subsection (d).
       (f) Meetings.--The Council may hold such meetings, and sit 
     and act at such times and places, as the Council considers 
     appropriate, but shall meet in formal session at least 2 
     times a year. State and local government agencies and other 
     organizations (such as academic sector institutions, foreign 
     language-related interest groups, business associations, 
     industry, and heritage community organizations) shall be 
     invited, as appropriate, to public meetings of the Council at 
     least once a year.
       (g) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Director may--
       (A) appoint, without regard to the provisions of title 5, 
     United States Code, governing the competitive service, such 
     personnel as the Director considers necessary; and
       (B) compensate such personnel without regard to the 
     provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of 
     that title.
       (2) Detail of government employees.--Upon request of the 
     Council, any Federal Government employee may be detailed to 
     the Council without reimbursement, and such detail shall be 
     without interruption or loss of civil service status or 
     privilege.
       (3) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the 
     Council, the Director may procure temporary and intermittent 
     services under section 3109(b) of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (4) Travel expenses.--Council members and staff shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Council.
       (5) Security clearance.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     appropriate Federal agencies or departments shall cooperate 
     with the Council in expeditiously providing to the Council 
     members and staff appropriate security clearances to the 
     extent possible pursuant to existing procedures and 
     requirements.
       (B) Exception.--No person shall be provided with access to 
     classified information under this section without the 
     appropriate required security clearance access.
       (6) Compensation.--The rate of pay for any employee of the 
     Council (including the Director) may not exceed the rate 
     payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 
     5316 of title 5, United States Code.
       (h) Powers.--
       (1) Delegation.--Any member or employee of the Council may, 
     if authorized by the Council, take any action that the 
     Council is authorized to take in this section.
       (2) Information.--
       (A) Council authority to secure.--The Council may secure 
     directly from any Federal agency such information, consistent 
     with Federal privacy laws, including The Family Educational 
     Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1232g) and Department of 
     Education's General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 
     1232(h)), the Council considers necessary to carry out its 
     responsibilities.
       (B) Requirement to furnish requested information.--Upon 
     request of the Director, the head of such agency shall 
     furnish such information to the Council.
       (3) Donations.--The Council may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (4) Mail.--The Council may use the United States mail in 
     the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     Federal agencies.
       (i) Conferences, Newsletter, and Website.--In carrying out 
     this section, the Council--
       (1) may arrange Federal, regional, State, and local 
     conferences for the purpose of developing and coordinating 
     effective programs and activities to improve foreign language 
     education;
       (2) may publish a newsletter concerning Federal, State, and 
     local programs that are effectively meeting the foreign 
     language needs of the nation; and
       (3) shall create and maintain a website containing 
     information on the Council and its activities, best practices 
     on language education, and other relevant information.
       (j) Annual Report.--
       (1) Requirement.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the 
     Council shall prepare and transmit to the President and the 
     relevant committees of Congress a report that describes--
       (A) the activities of the Council;
       (B) the efforts of the Council to improve foreign language 
     education and training; and
       (C) impediments to the use of a National Foreign Language 
     program, including any statutory and regulatory restrictions.
       (2) Relevant committees.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the relevant committees of Congress include--
       (A) in the House of Representatives--
       (i) the Committee on Appropriations;
       (ii) the Committee on Armed Services;
       (iii) the Committee on Education and Labor;
       (iv) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform;
       (v) the Committee on Small Business;
       (vi) the Committee on Foreign Affairs; and
       (vii) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence;
       (B) in the Senate--
       (i) the Committee on Appropriations;
       (ii) the Committee on Armed Services;
       (iii) the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
     Pensions;
       (iv) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs;
       (v) the Committee on Foreign Relations; and
       (vi) the Select Committee on Intelligence.
       (k) Establishment of a National Language Director.--
       (1) In general.--There is established a National Language 
     Director who shall be appointed by the President. The 
     National Language Director shall be a nationally recognized 
     individual with credentials and abilities across the sectors 
     to be involved with creating and implementing long-term 
     solutions to achieving national foreign language and cultural 
     competency.
       (2) Responsibilities.--The National Language Director 
     shall--
       (A) develop and monitor the implementation of a national 
     foreign language strategy, built upon the efforts of the 
     National Security Language Initiative, across all sectors;
       (B) establish formal relationships among the major 
     stakeholders in meeting the needs of the Nation for improved 
     capabilities in foreign languages and cultural understanding, 
     including Federal, State, and local government agencies, 
     academia, industry, labor, and heritage communities; and
       (C) coordinate and lead a public information campaign that 
     raises awareness of public and private sector careers 
     requiring foreign language skills and cultural understanding, 
     with the objective of increasing interest in and support for 
     the study of foreign languages among national leaders, the 
     business community, local officials, parents, and 
     individuals.
       (l) Encouragement of State Involvement.--
       (1) State contact persons.--The Council shall consult with 
     each State to provide for the designation by each State of an 
     individual to serve as a State contact person for the purpose 
     of receiving and disseminating information and communications 
     received from the Council.
       (2) State interagency councils and lead agencies.--Each 
     State is encouraged to establish a State interagency council 
     on foreign language coordination or designate a lead agency 
     for the State for the purpose of assuming primary 
     responsibility for coordinating and interacting with the 
     Council and State and local government agencies as necessary.
       (m) Congressional Notification.--The Council shall provide 
     to Congress such information as may be requested by Congress, 
     through reports, briefings, and other appropriate means.
       (n) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as necessary to carry out this 
     section.

[[Page S1428]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. OBAMA (for himself, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cardin, 
        Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. 
        Boxer, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 453. A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections; 
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today that 
seeks to address the all-too-common efforts to deceive voters in order 
to keep them away from the polls.
  It's hard to imagine that we even need a bill like this. But, 
unfortunately, there are people who will stop at nothing to try to 
deceive voters and keep them away from the polls. What's worse, these 
practices often target and exploit vulnerable populations, such as 
minorities, the disabled, or the poor.
  We saw countless examples in this past election. Some of us remember 
the thousands of Latino voters in Orange County, California, who 
received letters warning them in Spanish that, ``if you are an 
immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that can result in 
incarceration.''
  Or the voters in Maryland who received a ``democratic sample ballot'' 
featuring a Republican candidate for Governor and a Republican 
candidate for U.S. Senator.
  Or the voters in Virginia who received calls from a so-called 
``Virginia Elections Commission'' informing them--falsely--that they 
were ineligible to vote.
  Or the voters who were told that they couldn't vote if they had 
family members who had been convicted of a crime.
  Of course, these so-called warnings have no basis in fact, and are 
made with only one goal in mind--to keep Americans away from the polls. 
We see these problems year after year and election and after election, 
and my hope is that this bill will finally stop these practices in time 
for the next election.
  That is why I am reintroducing the Deceptive Practices and Voter 
Intimidation Prevention Act. It's a bill that makes voter intimidation 
and deception punishable by law, and it contains strong penalties so 
that people who commit these crimes suffer more than just a slap on the 
wrist. The bill also seeks to address the real harm of these crimes--
people who are prevented from voting by misinformation--by establishing 
a process for reaching out to these misinformed voters with accurate 
information so they can cast their votes in time.
  Senator Schumer has joined me in introducing this legislation, and we 
are joined by our colleagues, Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee, and Senators Cardin, Feingold, Kerry, Feinstein 
and Clinton as original co-sponsors to this bill.
  There are some issues in this country that are inherently difficult 
and political. Making sure that every American can cast a ballot 
shouldn't be one of them. There is no place for politics in this 
debate--no room for those who feel that they can gain a partisan 
advantage by keeping people away from the polls. It's time to get this 
done in a bipartisan fashion, and I believe this bill can make it 
happen.
  I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times editorial from January 
31, 2007, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 31, 2007]

                          Honesty in Elections

       On Election Day last fall in Maryland, fliers were handed 
     out in black neighborhoods with the heading ``Democratic 
     Sample Ballot'' and photos of black Democratic leaders--and 
     boxes checked off beside the names of the Republican 
     candidates for senator and governor. They were a blatant 
     attempt to fool black voters into thinking the Republican 
     candidates were endorsed by black Democrats. In Orange 
     County, Calif., 14,000 Latino voters got letters in Spanish 
     saying it was a crime for immigrants to vote in a federal 
     election. It didn't say that immigrants who are citizens have 
     the right to vote.
       Dirty tricks like these turn up every election season, in 
     large part because they are so rarely punished. But two 
     Democratic senators, Barack Obama of Illinois and Charles 
     Schumer of New York, are introducing a bill today that would 
     make deceiving or intimidating voters a federal crime with 
     substantial penalties.
       The bill aims at some of the most commonly used deceptive 
     political tactics. It makes it a crime to knowingly tell 
     voters the wrong day for an election. There have been 
     numerous reports of organized efforts to use telephones, 
     leaflets or posters to tell voters, especially in minority 
     areas, not to vote on Election Day because voting has been 
     postponed.
       The bill would also criminalize making false claims to 
     voters about who has endorsed a candidate, or wrongly telling 
     people--like immigrants who are registered voters in Orange 
     County--that they cannot vote.
       Along with defining these crimes and providing penalties of 
     up to five years' imprisonment, the bill would require the 
     Justice Department to counteract deceptive election 
     information that has been put out, and to report to Congress 
     after each election on what deceptive practices occurred and 
     what the Justice Department did about them.
       The bill would also allow individuals to go to court to 
     stop deceptive practices while they are happening. That is 
     important, given how uninterested the current Justice 
     Department has proved to be in cracking down on election 
     season dirty tricks.
       The bill is careful to avoid infringing on First Amendment 
     rights, and that is the right course. But in steering clear 
     of regulating speech, it is not clear how effective the 
     measure would be in addressing one of the worst dirty tricks 
     of last fall's election: a particular kind of deceptive 
     ``robocall'' that was used against Democratic Congressional 
     candidates. These calls, paid for by the Republicans, sounded 
     as if they had come from the Democrat; when a recipient hung 
     up, the call was repeated over and over. The intent was 
     clearly to annoy the recipients so they would not vote for 
     the Democrat.
       While there are already laws that can be used against this 
     sort of deceptive telephone harassment, a more specific bill 
     aimed directly at these calls is needed. But the bill being 
     introduced today is an important step toward making elections 
     more honest and fair. There is no reason it should not be 
     passed by Congress unanimously.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senator Obama 
in introducing landmark legislation to protect the most sacred right of 
our democracy: the right to vote. The Obama-Schumer Deceptive Practices 
and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 will end the deceptive 
practices that have become far too common in recent elections.
  At the outset, I want to commend my colleague from Illinois, Senator 
Obama, for his leadership on this important issue. It has been a great 
pleasure to work with him to draft this bill. I am also proud that we 
are joined by Senators Leahy, Cardin, Feingold, Kerry, Feinstein, and 
Clinton as original cosponsors of this legislation.
  We all know that there is an urgent need for this legislation. The 
right to vote is the wellspring of our democracy. Yet Americans have 
been profoundly shocked and disgusted in recent elections to see so 
many cynical attempts to lie to voters in order to keep them from 
casting their ballots.
  Let me give just a few examples. In last year's mid-term election, 
letters in Spanish were sent to voters in Orange County, CA, stating 
that it is a crime for an immigrant to vote. In fact, immigrants who 
are naturalized citizens have the right to vote just as any other 
American citizen does.
  In 2006, as well, fliers were handed out on election day in Maryland 
that gave the impression that top Republican candidates for office were 
Democratic candidates and were endorsed by prominent African Americans. 
These fliers were a clear and deliberate attempt to mislead voters.
  In Virginia, registered voters received recorded calls that falsely 
stated that the recipient of the call was registered in another State 
and would face criminal charges if they came to the polls.
  These dirty tricks are not new. In 2002, fliers were distributed in 
public housing complexes in Louisiana, telling people that they could 
cast their votes 3 days after election day if the weather was bad.
  These schemes insult the intelligence of those they target, and they 
insult our democracy. Yet they actually seem to be growing more common. 
The shameful reality is that today, Federal law does not prohibit 
wrongdoers from spreading these lies.
  It is high time for Congress to do something about this disgraceful 
state of affairs. The Obama-Schumer bill creates a new offense of voter 
deception. Under our legislation, anyone who intentionally lies to 
voters about certain key information will now face both civil penalties 
and criminal punishment of up to 5 years in prison or a $100,000 fine.
  The Obama-Schumer bill covers the facts that are most critical for 
reaching the polls--facts like where, when,

[[Page S1429]]

and how you can vote; whether you are eligible to vote; or whether an 
organization has actually endorsed a candidate. When voters are being 
misled about these core facts, the right to vote is nothing more than a 
hollow promise. It is a real threat to the right to vote when criminal 
elements are deliberately lying about something as basic--yet as 
important--as the date of the election. These types of lies are the 
poll taxes of today. They are being used to build a barrier around 
polling places and to disenfranchise voters in the most cynical and 
destructive way.
  Even when misinformation campaigns are not successful, because voters 
are too smart and too determined to reach the polls, these deceptive 
practices make a mockery out of the great tradition of American 
democracy. These despicable attempts have gone unpunished for far too 
long. The Obama-Schumer bill provides strong penalties to deter and 
punish the offense of voter deception.
  The Obama-Schumer bill will also increase the maximum penalty for 
voter intimidation from 1 year to 5 years in prison. Someone who tries 
to keep voters away from the polls with threats should not be released 
with a slap on the wrist, and our bill will create real penalties for 
this crime.
  Finally, our legislation also ensures that lies do not go unanswered 
and pass for truth. Under the Obama-Schumer bill, the Department of 
Justice will be responsible for getting the correct information out to 
voters so that they can get to the polls and cast their vote without 
undue confusion.
  As a check on whether elections are being tainted by these practices, 
after each election, the Attorney General will have to report to 
Congress about allegations of voter deception and how they were 
handled. We want to make sure that the Department of Justice uses the 
new tools that would be provided under this bill. The Attorney 
General's reports will give us a foundation for vigorous oversight.
  Let me also be clear about what this legislation does not do. Senator 
Obama and I have taken great care to craft a bill that will not run 
afoul of the first amendment or prevent Americans from expressing their 
political opinions. Our bill strikes a balance between the need for 
political debate and the fundamental right to vote. It is narrowly 
tailored: it applies only to activities within 60 days prior to an 
election, and it covers only the key facts that voters need to reach 
the polls and cast their votes without interference. This bill will not 
limit legitimate debate, and it will not punish honest mistakes. It is 
clear from the dirty tricks that America has witnessed in recent 
elections that the Congress has a compelling interest in protecting the 
right to vote by regulating false speech that disenfranchises voters. 
We have a responsibility to act on that interest for the sake of all 
Americans.
  The Obama-Schumer Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation 
Prevention Act of 2007 will finally criminalize efforts to keep voters 
away from the polls with deliberate lies. I hope and trust that the 
Congress will take up our bill and pass it without delay.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today, I join Senators Obama, Schumer, 
Cardin, Feinstein, Feingold, Clinton, and Kerry to introduce the 
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, a 
measure that would create new protections and expand existing 
protections against the use of deceptive practices in elections.
  There are few things as critical to the fabric of our Nation, and to 
American citizenship, as voting. The right to vote and to have your 
vote count is a foundational right, like our first amendment rights, 
because it secures the effectiveness of other protections. The 
legitimacy of our government is dependent on the access all Americans 
have to the political process.
  We saw last year in nearly 20 hearings in the House and Senate on the 
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act that there is a continuing 
need for the vital voting rights protections that landmark civil rights 
law provides for all Americans. But our need to protect the effective 
access of voters to the political process does not stop with those 
vital protections against discrimination. I am concerned about 
increasing efforts on behalf of some candidates and political parties 
to interfere with recent elections and undermine the participation of 
many voters. So today we take another step toward protecting the 
exercise of the effective exercise of voting rights by ensuring that 
the access to vote is not undermined by those who would take away that 
access through deceit and false information.
  The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 
would provide additional tools and criminal penalties to help combat 
the kinds of practices used during the 2006 midterms in places like 
Maryland and Virginia. In Maryland, Republican leaders admitted to 
distributing misleading flyers in African-American communities on 
election day suggesting that prominent African-American Democrats 
supported Republican candidates. In Virginia, the FBI has investigated 
calls received by many voters in heavily Democratic precincts directing 
them to the wrong polling sites, giving incorrect information about 
their eligibility to vote, or encouraging them not to vote on election 
day. I supported a similar bill, S. 1975, in the last Congress, and I 
hope that we can move forward in this Congress.
  Regrettably, the problems leading up to and on election day last year 
were not limited to a few isolated incidents. In the ninth precinct in 
Tucson, AZ, an area with a heavy percentage of Latino voters, it has 
been reported that three vigilantes armed with a clipboard, a video 
camera, and a visible firearm stopped only Latino voters as they 
entered and exited the polls on election day, issuing implied and overt 
threats. In Orange County, CA, Republican congressional candidate Tan 
Nguyen admitted that his campaign staffer sent letters to 73,000 
households, spreading misinformation about voting requirements 
apparently designed to suppress Latino voter turnout.
  In letters to the Attorney General and other officials at the Justice 
Department and in oversight hearings last November and 2 weeks ago, we 
have asked the Justice Department for more information about what it 
has been doing to investigate and combat these practices. In the 
information we have obtained so far, it is apparent that the Justice 
Department has not done enough and additional tools are needed.
  The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007 
would expand the conduct currently prohibited by law to include the 
dissemination of false information within 60 days of an election about 
the time, place, and manner of the election, the qualifications for 
voter eligibility, or the sponsor of public communications about an 
election. In addition, it would provide new means of enforcing these 
prohibitions and combating such dissemination: it creates a private 
right of action for persons aggrieved by the dissemination of such 
false information; it provides criminal penalties for such false 
dissemination of up to 5 years and $100,000; and it provides that any 
person may report such false dissemination to the Attorney General, and 
if it is determined that such information is false or deliberately 
misleading, the Justice Department would be required to take action to 
provide corrective information. In addition, this bill provides an 
additional tool for effective oversight by requiring the Attorney 
General to report to Congress on allegations of the dissemination of 
false information within 90 days of an election.
  By passing this bill and enacting it into law, we can continue our 
march towards a more inclusive democracy for all Americans.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Obama 
and our other colleagues in sponsoring the Deceptive Practices and 
Voter Intimidation Prevention Act, because it addresses an essential 
aspect of voting rights. For too long, we've ignored the festering 
problem of deceptive practices intended to intimidate and deceive 
voters in our national elections and suppress the vote of certain 
minority groups for partisan gain. The problem is a continuing threat 
to our democracy, and it's up to our new Congress to outlaw such 
practices, and I commend the Senator from Illinois for his leadership 
on this basic challenge.
  In doing so, we must be vigilant to ensure that the bill does not 
erode the important division of responsibility in the Department of 
Justice between civil rights enforcement by the Civil Rights Division 
and the efforts by the Criminal Division to combat voter fraud. That 
division of responsibility is essential to convincing voters, 
particularly those in poor or minority communities to have the trust 
necessary to work with the Civil Rights Division and to inform it of 
possible civil rights violations. The bill should clearly provide that, 
as traditionally has been the case, the Voting Section of the Civil 
Rights Division may not investigate matters of voter fraud, although it

[[Page S1430]]

may provide technical advice and assistance to other parts of the 
Department in carrying out the requirements of this legislation.
  We also need to guarantee that additional resources are appropriated 
to carry out the bill's requirements, so that resources will not be 
diverted from other important law enforcement activities of the 
Department.
  In addition, we must ensure that the bill's civil and criminal 
provisions are not misused to erode voter participation even further, 
particularly among poor and minority voters by wrongly targeting voter 
registration activities or chilling legitimate get-out-the-vote efforts 
by organizations serving the public interest.
  I look forward very much to working with my colleagues to deal with 
these specific issues, and to enact this important new measure as part 
of our fundamental responsibility to protect the most basic right in 
our democracy, the right to vote.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 454. A bill to provide an increase in funding for Federal Pell 
Grants, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to expand 
the deduction for interest paid on student loans, raise the 
contribution limits for Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, and make 
the exclusion for employer provided educational assistance permanent, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Improving 
Access to Higher Education Act. This legislation would provide an 
increase in the maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, as well as 
additional benefits to help make higher education more accessible and 
affordable.
  Our system of higher education is, in many ways, the envy of the 
world, but its benefits have not been equally available. Unfortunately, 
family income still largely determines whether students will pursue 
higher education. Students from families with incomes above $75,000 are 
more than twice as likely to attend college as students from families 
with incomes of less than $25,000.
  To help remedy these inequities, the Federal Government has committed 
itself to a need-based system of student financial aid designed to help 
remove the economic barriers to higher education. Central to this 
effort over the past 30 years has been the Pell grant program.
  The Pell Grant Program is the largest source of Federal grant aid and 
the cornerstone of our Federal need-based aid system. In 2006, the Pell 
program provided approximately $13 billion in grant aid to more than 
5.3 million students. Students with the greatest need receive the 
maximum Pell award, which is currently set at $4,050. And Pell grants 
are truly targeted to the neediest of students--Pell recipients have a 
median family income of only $15,200.
  Because of the central role of the Pell Grant Program, I am deeply 
concerned by the significant erosion in the purchasing power of the 
Pell grant that has occurred in recent years. In 1975, the maximum Pell 
grant represented approximately 80 percent of the costs of attending a 
public, 4-year institution. Today, it covers only 33 percent of these 
costs.
  When lower levels of grant aid are available, students are forced to 
make up the difference by taking on larger and larger amounts of debt 
to finance their education. Earlier this month, I met with two students 
from the University of Southern Maine who told me that students 
graduating from 4-year institutions in Maine leave with an average debt 
of $20,239. As startling as this figure may be, it underestimates the 
true indebtedness of students, since it does not take into account 
credit card debt or private loans that students use to help finance 
their education.
  The decline in the value of grant aid and the growing reliance on 
loans have particularly negative consequences for low-income students. 
In fact, the staggering amount of debt required to finance higher 
education may force some low-income students to abandon their plans to 
attend college altogether.
  As explained in a recent report by the Educational Policy Institute, 
``Grants for Students: What they do, Why they work,'' people from 
lower-income backgrounds often place a higher value on having money to 
meet pressing current needs, and accordingly, are less likely to make 
investments where the financial return comes only in the long term. 
According to the report, ``[L]ong term poverty encourages short-term 
thinking and those who experience it tend to identify very strongly 
with the expression `one in the hand is worth two in the bush.' '' This 
is just one reason why the availability of loans does not solve the 
college access problem for low-income students, and why grant aid is so 
crucial.
  That is why today I am introducing legislation that will raise the 
maximum Pell grant award to $5,100, an increase of more tha $1,000 in a 
single year. While I recognize that this represents a significant 
increase in a single year, this increase is long overdue. The maximum 
grant award has been essentially level-funded since Fiscal Year 2002. 
If we do not act soon Fiscal Year 2007 will become the fifth year in a 
row that the Pell maximum award has been level-funded.

  By raising the maximum award to $5,100, my home state of Maine will 
receive approximately $60 million in Pell grant funding, an increase of 
over $15 million from current levels. This level of funding would 
provide Pell grants to more than 20,000 Maine students.
  I recently met with Andrew Bossie, a first-generation college student 
from my hometown of Caribou, about the importance of Pell grants. 
Andrew is currently a student at the University of Southern Maine and 
will graduate this spring, in large part, because of the help of Pell 
grants. As Andrew told me, ``Without Pell grants, there is no doubt 
that I would not have been able to attend college. Although the current 
Pell grant award is a huge help, I still feel the stress of sometimes 
having to decide between a badly-needed new pair of shoes and making my 
tuition payments.'' Andrew is thriving academically--he is on the 
Dean's list--and he is also the student body president and is active as 
a community volunteer.
  Increasing the maximum Pell award by $1,050 is going to make a real 
difference for Andrew and other students in their ability to pursue 
their college dreams. While I recognize that an increase to $5,100 in a 
single year is an ambitious goal, it is a worthy one for a nation that 
understands the opportunities that a college education brings.
  My legislation also amends the Higher Education Act to raise the 
minimum Pell award to $500, up from the current minimum of $400. The 
minimum award level has not been increased in over 10 years. I believe 
we should ensure that every student who qualifies for a Pell receives 
at least $500.
  In addition to our efforts on behalf of Pell grants, there are other 
important steps we can take to put higher education in the reach of 
more families. Ten years ago, in my first year as a Senator, I 
introduced S. 930, the ``College Affordability and Access Act,'' which 
contained three provisions designed to expand access to higher 
education, and reduce its cost. These three provisions were enacted 
into law, in amended form, as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
  The proposal I am submitting today builds upon each of those three 
provisions. First, in recognition of the increased cost of higher 
education, my proposal calls for an increase in the tax deduction 
available for interest paid on higher education loans. Second, my 
proposal calls for a similar increase in the contribution limit for 
tax-free Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Third, the bill would 
make permanent the current tax-free treatment of employer-provided 
educational assistance programs.
  The value of the tax relief we provided 10 years ago has not kept 
pace with the rising cost of higher education. According to data from 
the College Board, 4-year private colleges now charge $30,000 per year 
for tuition, fees, room, and board. Even after taking inflation into 
account, this represents an increase of more than $6,000 since the 
1996-1997 school year. Perhaps even more troubling, the College Board 
reports that the rate of increase has actually been sharper at public 
4-year institutions than their private counterparts. Ten years ago, 
students attending any of America's excellent public universities would 
have paid, on average, just over $9,000 to cover tuition, fees, room, 
and board. Today, these

[[Page S1431]]

students can expect to pay nearly $12,800--an increase of 38 percent 
after taking inflation into account.
  By contrast, the student loan interest deduction we provided as part 
of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 remains at $2,500. It is time that 
we raise this cap to $3,750, a 50-percent increase. Doing so is a step 
toward recognizing that investments in higher education are essential 
to the health of our economy in an increasingly global, competitive 
marketplace.
  I also believe it is necessary to increase the contribution limits 
for Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Under current law, taxpayers 
may make contributions of up to $2,000 per year to these tax-free 
higher education accounts. In light of the inflation in college costs 
that I have already described, I believe this contribution limit ought 
to be increased to $3,000 per year.
  Finally, my proposal would also extend current education benefits 
provided to employees through their employers. Under current law, a 
taxpayer may receive, tax free, up to $5,250 in education benefits 
through their employers each year. This provision helps both companies 
and their employees. Companies that provide this benefit get a 
workforce that is current with the latest methods and technologies in 
the field, while their employees get the training they need to advance 
through the ranks. Unfortunately, this provision expires on December 
31, 2010. I propose that it be made permanent.
  Now is the time for us to make a commitment to raising the Pell 
maximum award to $5,100, and to providing additional relief to families 
struggling to afford higher education. Investing in higher education is 
crucial to our economic future and competitiveness in the global 
economy, and my legislation represents a sound investment towards 
making the dream of a college education a reality for more Americans. I 
hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY:
  S. 455. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
tax relief to active duty military personnel and employers who assist 
them, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing 
the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007. This legislation will 
help those who are valiantly serving their country and the families 
that they leave behind.
  The best definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who 
wear the uniform of our country. That means giving our troops the 
resources they need to keep them safe while they are protecting us. And 
it means supporting our troops at home as well as abroad.
  Currently, there are over 132,000 military personnel serving in Iraq 
and more are on the way. There are approximately 22,100 U.S. 
servicemembers in Afghanistan. Many of these men and women are 
reservists and have been called to activity duty, frequently for 
multiple tours. Often they own, or are employed, by a small business 
and their activation results in hardship for the business.
  Small businesses with less than 100 employees employ about 18 percent 
of all reservists who hold civilian jobs. Most large businesses have 
the resources to provide supplemental income to reservist employees 
called up and to replace them with temporary employees. I applaud the 
businesses that have been able to pay supplemental income to their 
reservists, but it is not easy for small businesses to do the same.
  Earlier today, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee held 
a hearing on veterans' small business issues. A majority of our 
veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are Reserve and National 
Guard members--35 percent of whom are either self-employed or own or 
are employed by a small business.
  We heard some disturbing statistics about the impact and unintended 
consequences the callup of reservists is having on small businesses. 
According to a January 2007 survey conducted by Workforce Management, 
54 percent of the businesses surveyed responded that they would not 
hire a citizen soldier if they knew that they could be called up for an 
indeterminate amount of time. I am concerned that long callups have 
made it hard for small businesses to be supportive of civilian 
soldiers.
  The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 provides a tax credit 
to small businesses with fewer than 100 employees and the self-employed 
to help with the cost of paying the salary of their reservist employees 
when they are called to active duty. This legislation also provides an 
additional tax credit to help offset the cost of hiring temporary 
employees to fill vacancies left by the servicemembers.
  Many reservists who own their own business return from duty to find 
that their business is floundering. These tax credits will help 
reservists who own their own businesses to hire temporary employees for 
the duration of their tour as well as to assist small businesses deal 
with the impact of having an essential employee called up for active 
duty.
  In addition to helping small businesses, the Active Duty Military Tax 
Relief of 2007 addresses concerns related to differential military pay, 
income tax withholding, and retirement plan participation. These 
provisions will make it easier for employers who would like to pay 
their employees supplemental income, above their military pay, and make 
pension contributions. Our legislation would make differential military 
pay subject to Federal income tax withholding. In addition, with 
respect to the retirement plan rules, the bill provides that a person 
receiving differential military pay would be treated as an employee of 
the employer making the payment and allows the differential military 
pay to be treated as compensation.
  This bill also attempts to mitigate the financial strains placed on 
our military families while the family member is deployed. To help ease 
some of this burden, the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 
would increase the standard deduction for active duty military 
personnel by $1,000 for 2007 and 2008. In addition, this legislation 
would make permanent the existing provision which allows taxpayers to 
include combat pay as earned income for purposes of the earned income 
tax credit (EITC). Without this provision some military families would 
no longer be eligible to receive the EITC because combat pay is 
currently not taxable.
  Last Congress, Senator Smith and I introduced the Fallen Heroes 
Family Savings Act, which we have incorporated into the Active Duty 
Military Tax Relief Act. This provision provides tax relief for the 
death gratuity payment that is given to families that have lost a loved 
one in combat. This payment is currently $100,000.
  Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to 
use it to make contributions to tax-preferred saving accounts that help 
with saving for retirement, health care, or the costs of education. Our 
legislation would allow military death gratuities to be contributed to 
certain tax-preferred accounts. These contributions would be treated as 
qualified rollovers. The contribution limits of these accounts will not 
be applied to these contributions.
  Our service men and women need to know that we are honoring their 
valor by taking care of those they leave behind. Helping ease the tax 
burden on the death gratuity will enable military families to save more 
for retirement, education, and health care by allowing them to put the 
payment in an account in which the earnings will accumulate tax-free.
  These changes to our tax laws will help our military families with 
some of their financial burdens. It cannot repay the sacrifices they 
have made for us, but it is a small way we can support our troops and 
their families at home as well as abroad.
  The National Military Family Association, the Reserve Officers 
Association, and The Military Coalition (a consortium of veterans and 
military organizations representing more than 5.5 million members plus 
their families and survivors) support this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 455

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

[[Page S1432]]

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Active Duty Military Tax 
     Relief Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. CREDIT FOR INCOME DIFFERENTIAL FOR EMPLOYMENT OF 
                   ACTIVATED MILITARY RESERVIST AND REPLACEMENT 
                   PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--Subpart B of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
     foreign tax credit, etc.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``SEC. 30C. EMPLOYER WAGE CREDIT FOR ACTIVATED MILITARY 
                   RESERVISTS.

       ``(a) General Rule.--There shall be allowed as a credit 
     against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year 
     an amount equal to the sum of--
       ``(1) in the case of an eligible small business employer, 
     the employment credit with respect to all qualified employees 
     and qualified replacement employees of the taxpayer, plus
       ``(2) the self-employment credit of a qualified self-
     employed taxpayer.
       ``(b) Employment Credit.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Qualified employees.--
       ``(A) In general.--The employment credit with respect to a 
     qualified employee of the taxpayer for any taxable year is 
     equal to 40 percent of so much of the excess (if any) paid by 
     the taxpayer to such qualified employee of--
       ``(i) the qualified employee's average daily qualified 
     compensation for the taxable year, over
       ``(ii) the average daily military pay and allowances 
     received by the qualified employee during the taxable year 
     while participating in qualified reserve component duty to 
     the exclusion of the qualified employee's normal employment 
     duties,

     for the aggregate number of days the qualified employee 
     participates in qualified reserve component duty during the 
     taxable year (including time spent in a travel status) as 
     does not exceed $25,000. The employment credit, with respect 
     to all qualified employees, is equal to the sum of the 
     employment credits for each qualified employee under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Average daily qualified compensation and average 
     daily military pay and allowances.--As used with respect to a 
     qualified employee--
       ``(i) the term `average daily qualified compensation' means 
     the qualified compensation of the qualified employee for the 
     taxable year divided by 365, and
       ``(ii) the term `average daily military pay and allowances' 
     means--

       ``(I) the amount paid to the qualified employee during the 
     taxable year as military pay and allowances on account of the 
     qualified employee's participation in qualified reserve 
     component duty, divided by
       ``(II) the total number of days the qualified employee 
     participates in qualified reserve component duty, including 
     time spent in travel status.

       ``(C) Qualified compensation.--When used with respect to 
     the compensation paid to a qualified employee for any period 
     during which the qualified employee participates in qualified 
     reserve component duty, the term `qualified compensation' 
     means--
       ``(i) compensation which is normally contingent on the 
     qualified employee's presence for work and which would be 
     deductible from the taxpayer's gross income under section 
     162(a)(1) if the qualified employee were present and 
     receiving such compensation,
       ``(ii) compensation which is not characterized by the 
     taxpayer as vacation or holiday pay, or as sick leave or pay, 
     or as any other form of pay for a nonspecific leave of 
     absence, and with respect to which the number of days the 
     qualified employee participates in qualified reserve 
     component duty does not result in any reduction in the amount 
     of vacation time, sick leave, or other nonspecific leave 
     previously credited to or earned by the qualified employee, 
     and
       ``(iii) group health plan costs (if any) with respect to 
     the qualified employee.
       ``(D) Qualified employee.--The term `qualified employee' 
     means a person who--
       ``(i) has been an employee of the taxpayer for the 91-day 
     period immediately preceding the period during which the 
     employee participates in qualified reserve component duty, 
     and
       ``(ii) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve 
     component of an Armed Force of the United States as defined 
     in sections 10142 and 10101 of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(2) Qualified replacement employees.--
       ``(A) In general.--The employment credit with respect to a 
     qualified replacement employee of the taxpayer for any 
     taxable year is equal to 40 percent of so much of the 
     individual's qualified compensation attributable to service 
     rendered as a qualified replacement employee as does not 
     exceed $15,000. The employment credit, with respect to all 
     qualified replacement employees, is equal to the sum of the 
     employment credits for each qualified replacement employee 
     under this subsection.
       ``(B) Qualified compensation.--When used with respect to 
     the compensation paid to a qualified replacement employee, 
     the term `qualified compensation' means--
       ``(i) compensation which is normally contingent on the 
     qualified replacement employee's presence for work and which 
     is deductible from the taxpayer's gross income under section 
     162(a)(1),
       ``(ii) compensation which is not characterized by the 
     taxpayer as vacation or holiday pay, or as sick leave or pay, 
     or as any other form of pay for a nonspecific leave of 
     absence, and
       ``(iii) group health plan costs (if any) with respect to 
     the qualified replacement employee.
       ``(C) Qualified replacement employee.--The term `qualified 
     replacement employee' means an individual who is hired to 
     replace a qualified employee or a qualified self-employed 
     taxpayer, but only with respect to the period during which 
     such employee or taxpayer participates in qualified reserve 
     component duty, including time spent in travel status, and, 
     in the case of a qualified employee, is receiving qualified 
     compensation (as defined in paragraph (1)(C)) for which an 
     employment credit is allowed as determined under paragraph 
     (1).
       ``(c) Self-Employment Credit.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       ``(1) In general.--The self-employment credit of a 
     qualified self-employed taxpayer for any taxable year is 
     equal to 40 percent of so much of the excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the qualified self-employed taxpayer's average daily 
     qualified compensation for the taxable year, over
       ``(B) the average daily military pay and allowances 
     received by the taxpayer during the taxable year while 
     participating in qualified reserve component duty to the 
     exclusion of the taxpayer's normal self-employment duties,

     for the aggregate number of days the taxpayer participates in 
     qualified reserve component duty during the taxable year 
     (including time spent in a travel status) as does not exceed 
     $25,000.
       ``(2) Average daily qualified compensation and average 
     daily military pay and allowances.--As used with respect to a 
     qualified self-employed taxpayer--
       ``(A) the term `average daily qualified compensation' means 
     the qualified compensation of the qualified self-employed 
     taxpayer for the taxable year divided by 365 days, and
       ``(B) the term `average daily military pay and allowances' 
     means--
       ``(i) the amount paid to the taxpayer during the taxable 
     year as military pay and allowances on account of the 
     taxpayer's participation in qualified reserve component duty, 
     divided by
       ``(ii) the total number of days the taxpayer participates 
     in qualified reserve component duty, including time spent in 
     travel status.
       ``(3) Qualified compensation.--When used with respect to 
     the compensation paid to a qualified self-employed taxpayer 
     for any period during which the qualified self-employed 
     taxpayer participates in qualified reserve component duty, 
     the term `qualified compensation' means--
       ``(A) the self-employment income (as defined in section 
     1402(b) of the taxpayer which is normally contingent on the 
     taxpayer's presence for work,
       ``(B) compensation which is not characterized by the 
     taxpayer as vacation or holiday pay, or as sick leave or pay, 
     or as any other form of pay for a nonspecific leave of 
     absence, and
       ``(C) the amount paid for insurance which constitutes 
     medical care for the taxpayer for such year (within the 
     meaning of section 162(l)).
       ``(4) Qualified self-employed taxpayer.--The term 
     `qualified self-employed taxpayer' means a taxpayer who--
       ``(A) has net earnings from self-employment (as defined in 
     section 1402(a)) for the taxable year, and
       ``(B) is a member of the Ready Reserve of a reserve 
     component of an Armed Force of the United States.
       ``(d) Coordination With Other Credits.--The amount of 
     credit otherwise allowable under this chapter with respect to 
     compensation paid to any employee shall be reduced by the 
     credit allowed by this section with respect to such employee.
       ``(e) Limitations.--
       ``(1) Application with other credits.--The credit allowed 
     under subsection (a) for any taxable year shall not exceed 
     the excess (if any) of--
       ``(A) the regular tax for the taxable year reduced by the 
     sum of the credits allowable under subpart A and sections 27, 
     29, and 30, over
       ``(B) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year.
       ``(2) Disallowance for failure to comply with employment or 
     reemployment rights of members of the reserve components of 
     the armed forces of the united states.--No credit shall be 
     allowed under subsection (a) to a taxpayer for--
       ``(A) any taxable year, beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this section, in which the taxpayer is under a 
     final order, judgment, or other process issued or required by 
     a district court of the United States under section 4323 of 
     title 38 of the United States Code with respect to a 
     violation of chapter 43 of such title, and
       ``(B) the 2 succeeding taxable years.
       ``(3) Disallowance with respect to persons ordered to 
     active duty for training.--No credit shall be allowed under 
     subsection (a) to a taxpayer with respect to any period by 
     taking into account any person who is called or ordered to 
     active duty for any of the following types of duty:
       ``(A) Active duty for training under any provision of title 
     10, United States Code.
       ``(B) Training at encampments, maneuvers, outdoor target 
     practice, or other exercises under chapter 5 of title 32, 
     United States Code.

[[Page S1433]]

       ``(C) Full-time National Guard duty, as defined in section 
     101(d)(5) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(f) General Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes 
     of this section--
       ``(1) Eligible small business employer.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible small business 
     employer' means, with respect to any taxable year, any 
     employer which--
       ``(i) employed an average of 100 or fewer employees on 
     business days during such taxable year, and
       ``(ii) under a written plan of the employer, provides the 
     excess amount described in subsection (b)(1)(A) to every 
     qualified employee of the employer.
       ``(B) Controlled groups.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), 
     all persons treated as a single employer under subsection 
     (b), (c), (m), or (o) of section 414 shall be treated as a 
     single employer.
       ``(2) Military pay and allowances.--The term `military pay' 
     means pay as that term is defined in section 101(21) of title 
     37, United States Code, and the term `allowances' means the 
     allowances payable to a member of the Armed Forces of the 
     United States under chapter 7 of that title.
       ``(3) Qualified reserve component duty.--The term 
     `qualified reserve component duty' includes only active duty 
     performed, as designated in the reservist's military orders, 
     in support of a contingency operation as defined in section 
     101(a)(13) of title 10, United States Code.
       ``(4) Carryback and carryforward allowed.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the credit allowable under subsection 
     (a) for a taxable year exceeds the amount of the limitation 
     under subsection (f)(1) for such taxable year (in this 
     paragraph referred to as the `unused credit year'), such 
     excess shall be a credit carryback to the taxable year 
     preceding the unused credit year and a credit carryforward to 
     each of the 20 taxable years following the unused credit 
     year.
       ``(B) Rules.--Rules similar to the rules of section 39 
     shall apply with respect to the credit carryback and credit 
     carryforward under subparagraph (A).
       ``(5) Certain rules to apply.--Rules similar to the rules 
     of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section 52 shall 
     apply.''.
       (b) No Deduction for Compensation Taken Into Account for 
     Credit.--Section 280C(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to rule for employment credits) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``or compensation'' after ``salaries'', 
     and
       (2) by inserting ``30C,'' before ``45A(a),''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 55(c)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ``30C(e)(1),'' 
     after ``30(b)(3),''.
       (d) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     B of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end of 30A 
     the following new item:

``Sec. 30C. Employer wage credit for activated military reservists.''.

       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid in taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2006.

     SEC. 3. DIFFERENTIAL WAGE PAYMENTS.

       (a) Income Tax Withholding on Differential Wage Payments.--
       (1) In general.--Section 3401 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to definitions) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Differential Wage Payments to Active Duty Members of 
     the Uniformed Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), any 
     differential wage payment shall be treated as a payment of 
     wages by the employer to the employee.
       ``(2) Differential wage payment.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (1), the term `differential wage payment' means any payment 
     which--
       ``(A) is made by an employer to an individual with respect 
     to any period during which the individual is performing 
     service in the uniformed services while on active duty for a 
     period of more than 30 days, and
       ``(B) represents all or a portion of the wages the 
     individual would have received from the employer if the 
     individual were performing service for the employer.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to remuneration paid after December 31, 2007.
       (b) Treatment of Differential Wage Payments for Retirement 
     Plan Purposes.--
       (1) Pension plans.--
       (A) In general.--Section 414(u) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986 (relating to special rules relating to veterans' 
     reemployment rights under USERRA) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(11) Treatment of differential wage payments.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in this paragraph, 
     for purposes of applying this title to a retirement plan to 
     which this subsection applies--
       ``(i) an individual receiving a differential wage payment 
     shall be treated as an employee of the employer making the 
     payment,
       ``(ii) the differential wage payment shall be treated as 
     compensation, and
       ``(iii) the plan shall not be treated as failing to meet 
     the requirements of any provision described in paragraph 
     (1)(C) by reason of any contribution or benefit which is 
     based on the differential wage payment.
       ``(B) Special rule for distributions.--
       ``(i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraph (A)(i), for 
     purposes of section 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(I), 403(b)(7)(A)(ii), 
     403(b)(11)(A), or 457(d)(1)(A)(ii), an individual shall be 
     treated as having been severed from employment during any 
     period the individual is performing service in the uniformed 
     services described in section 3401(h)(2)(A).
       ``(ii) Limitation.--If an individual elects to receive a 
     distribution by reason of clause (i), the plan shall provide 
     that the individual may not make an elective deferral or 
     employee contribution during the 6-month period beginning on 
     the date of the distribution.
       ``(C) Nondiscrimination requirement.--Subparagraph (A)(iii) 
     shall apply only if all employees of an employer (as 
     determined under subsections (b), (c), (m), and (o)) 
     performing service in the uniformed services described in 
     section 3401(h)(2)(A) are entitled to receive differential 
     wage payments on reasonably equivalent terms and, if eligible 
     to participate in a retirement plan maintained by the 
     employer, to make contributions based on the payments on 
     reasonably equivalent terms. For purposes of applying this 
     subparagraph, the provisions of paragraphs (3), (4), and (5), 
     of section 410(b) shall apply.
       ``(D) Differential wage payment.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, the term `differential wage payment' has the 
     meaning given such term by section 3401(h)(2).''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--The heading for section 414(u) 
     of such Code is amended by inserting ``and to Differential 
     Wage Payments to Members on Active Duty'' after ``USERRA''.
       (2) Differential wage payments treated as compensation for 
     individual retirement plans.--Section 219(f)(1) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining compensation) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``The term `compensation' includes any differential wage 
     payment (as defined in section 3401(h)(2)).''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply to years beginning after December 31, 2007.
       (c) Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments.--
       (1) In general.--If this subsection applies to any plan or 
     annuity contract amendment--
       (A) such plan or contract shall be treated as being 
     operated in accordance with the terms of the plan or contract 
     during the period described in paragraph (2)(B)(i), and
       (B) except as provided by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
     such plan shall not fail to meet the requirements of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or the Employee Retirement 
     Income Security Act of 1974 by reason of such amendment.
       (2) Amendments to which section applies.--
       (A) In general.--This subsection shall apply to any 
     amendment to any plan or annuity contract which is made--
       (i) pursuant to any amendment made by this section, and
       (ii) on or before the last day of the first plan year 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2009.
       (B) Conditions.--This subsection shall not apply to any 
     plan or annuity contract amendment unless--
       (i) during the period beginning on the date the amendment 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) takes effect and ending on 
     the date described in subparagraph (A)(ii) (or, if earlier, 
     the date the plan or contract amendment is adopted), the plan 
     or contract is operated as if such plan or contract amendment 
     were in effect, and
       (ii) such plan or contract amendment applies retroactively 
     for such period.

     SEC. 4. CONTRIBUTIONS OF MILITARY DEATH GRATUITIES TO CERTAIN 
                   TAX-FAVORED ACCOUNTS.

       (a) Roth IRAs.--
       (1) Provision in effect before pension protection act.--
     Subsection (e) of section 408A of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to qualified rollover contribution), as in 
     effect before the amendments made by section 824 of the 
     Pension Protection Act of 2006, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(e) Qualified Rollover Contribution.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified rollover 
     contribution' means a rollover contribution to a Roth IRA 
     from another such account, or from an individual retirement 
     plan, but only if such rollover contribution meets the 
     requirements of section 408(d)(3). Such term includes a 
     rollover contribution described in section 402A(c)(3)(A). For 
     purposes of section 408(d)(3)(B), there shall be disregarded 
     any qualified rollover contribution from an individual 
     retirement plan (other than a Roth IRA) to a Roth IRA.
       ``(2) Military death gratuity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified rollover 
     contribution' includes a contribution to a Roth IRA 
     maintained for the benefit of an individual to the extent 
     that such contribution does not exceed the amount received by 
     such individual under section 1477 of title 10, United States 
     Code, or under section 1967 of title 38 of such Code, if such 
     contribution is made not later than 1 year after the day on 
     which such individual receives such amount.
       ``(B) Annual limit on number of rollovers not to apply.--
     Section 408(d)(3)(B) shall not apply with respect to amounts 
     treated as a rollover by the subparagraph (A).

[[Page S1434]]

       ``(C) Application of section 72.--For purposes of applying 
     section 72 in the case of a distribution which is not a 
     qualified distribution, the amount treated as a rollover by 
     reason of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as investment in 
     the contract.''.
       (2) Provision in effect after pension protection act.--
     Subsection (e) of section 408A, as in effect after the 
     amendments made by section 824 of the Pension Protection Act 
     of 2006, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Qualified Rollover Contribution.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified rollover 
     contribution' means a rollover contribution--
       ``(A) to a Roth IRA from another such account,
       ``(B) from an eligible retirement plan, but only if--
       ``(i) in the case of an individual retirement plan, such 
     rollover contribution meets the requirements of section 
     408(d)(3), and
       ``(ii) in the case of any eligible retirement plan (as 
     defined in section 402(c)(8)(B) other than clauses (i) and 
     (ii) thereof), such rollover contribution meets the 
     requirements of section 402(c), 403(b)(8), or 457(e)(16), as 
     applicable.

     For purposes of section 408(d)(3)(B), there shall be 
     disregarded any qualified rollover contribution from an 
     individual retirement plan (other than a Roth IRA) to a Roth 
     IRA.
       ``(2) Military death gratuity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `qualified rollover 
     contribution' includes a contribution to a Roth IRA 
     maintained for the benefit of an individual to the extent 
     that such contribution does not exceed the amount received by 
     such individual under section 1477 of title 10, United States 
     Code, or under section 1967 of title 38 of such Code, if such 
     contribution is made not later than 1 year after the day on 
     which such individual receives such amount.
       ``(B) Annual limit on number of rollovers not to apply.--
     Section 408(d)(3)(B) shall not apply with respect to amounts 
     treated as a rollover by the subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Application of section 72.--For purposes of applying 
     section 72 in the case of a distribution which is not a 
     qualified distribution, the amount treated as a rollover by 
     reason of subparagraph (A) shall be treated as investment in 
     the contract.''.
       (b) Health Savings Accounts and Archer MSAs.--Sections 
     220(f)(5) and 223(f)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     are each amended by adding at the end the following flush 
     sentence:

     ``For purposes of subparagraphs (A) and (B), rules similar to 
     the rules of section 408A(e)(2) (relating to rollover 
     treatment for contributions of military death gratuity) shall 
     apply.''.
       (c) Education Savings Accounts.--Section 530(d)(5) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new sentence: ``For purposes of this paragraph, 
     rules similar to the rules of section 408A(e)(2) (relating to 
     rollover treatment for contributions of military death 
     gratuity) shall apply.''.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), the amendments made by this section shall apply with 
     respect to deaths from injuries occurring on or after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Application of amendments to deaths from injuries 
     occurring on or after october 7, 2001, and before 
     enactment.--The amendments made by this section shall apply 
     to any contribution made pursuant to section 408A(e)(2), 
     220(f)(5), 223(f)(5), or 530(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, with respect to amounts 
     received under section 1477 of title 10, United States Code, 
     or under section 1967 of title 38 of such Code, for deaths 
     from injuries occurring on or after October 7, 2001, and 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act if such 
     contribution is made not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Pension protection act changes.--Section 408A(e)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as in effect after the 
     amendments made by subsection (a)(2)) shall apply to taxable 
     years beginning after December 31, 2007.

     SEC. 5. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN STANDARD DEDUCTION FOR ACTIVE 
                   DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 63(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining additional standard 
     deduction for the aged and blind) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(3) Additional standard deduction.--For the purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the additional standard deduction is the sum 
     of--
       ``(A) the sum of each additional amount to which the 
     taxpayer is entitled under subsection (f), plus
       ``(B) in the case of a taxable year beginning in 2007 or 
     2008, an additional amount of $1,000 for an individual for 
     such taxable year if the individual who at any time during 
     such taxable year is performing service in the uniformed 
     services while on active duty for a period of more than 30 
     days.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 3402(m)(3) of the the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by striking ``for the aged and blind''.
       (2) Section 6012(a)(1)(B) of such Code is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new sentence: ``The preceding 
     sentence shall be applied without regard to section 
     63(c)(3)(B) and each of the amounts specified in subparagraph 
     (A) shall be increased by the portion of any additional 
     standard deduction to which the individual is entitled by 
     reason of section 63(c)(3)(B).''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

     SEC. 6. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF ELECTION TO INCLUDE COMBAT PAY 
                   AS EARNED INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF EARNED INCOME 
                   CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 32(c)(2)(B)(vi) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 106 of division A 
     of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(vi) a taxpayer may elect to treat amounts excluded from 
     gross income by means of section 112 as earned income.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Schumer, Mr. 
        Specter, Mr. Biden, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Stevens, Ms. Cantwell, Mr. 
        Coleman, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Salazar, Mrs. 
        Murray, Mr. Brown, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. 
        Kohl, and Mr. Casey):
  S. 456. A bill to increase and enhance law enforcement resources 
committed to investigation and prosecution of violent gangs, to deter 
and punish violent gang crime, to protect law-abiding citizens and 
communities from violent criminals, to revise and enhance criminal 
penalties for violent crimes, to expand and improve gang prevention 
programs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch and 
a bipartisan group of at least 15 original cosponsors in introducing 
comprehensive antiaging legislation--the Gang Abatement and Prevention 
Act of 2007.
  This bill will provide a comprehensive approach to gang violence by: 
helping those on the front lines of enforcement, by adopting new 
criminal laws and tougher penalties against those who commit gang-
related and other violent acts; authorizing hundreds of millions of 
dollars for gang-related investigations and prosecutions, and new funds 
for witness protection; and identifying successful community programs, 
and investing significant resources in schools and civic and religious 
organizations to prevent teenagers and other young people from joining 
gangs in the first place.
  On January 10 of this year, officials in Van Nuys, CA, reported that 
two teenage boys were shot in a reported gang-related shooting.
  A few weeks earlier, on December 29, Visalia, CA, law enforcement 
officials reported two separate shootings and the wounding of two 
minors.
  On December 24, San Diego officials noted how a 16 year old was shot 
in the leg in gang violence.
  On December 22, a 9-year-old girl in Los Angeles was just washing 
dishes with her mom inside her home--until gang members exchanged fire 
across the street, and a bullet tore through the front wall of her 
house and struck her in the head.
  And that came 5 days after Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old black girl who 
was talking to friends, was shot and killed by two Hispanic gang 
members.
  The New York Times just reported on the Cheryl Green shooting, but 
unfortunately, I see gang violence in the news almost every day in 
California, with gang-related shootings of children almost too numerous 
to count. Perhaps the worst occurred last September, when Los Angeles 
experienced a new low.
  Three-year-old Kaitlyn Avila was shot point-blank by a gang member 
who mistakenly thought her father was a member of a rival gang. The 
gang member shot and wounded her father, then intentionally fired into 
little Kaitlyn's chest.
  It is the first time ever that law enforcement officials remember a 
young child being ``targeted'' in a gang-related shooting.
  Unfortunately, this shooting is only a symptom of the disease that 
has taken hold of our cities--gang violence. The violence perpetrated 
by gang members affects not only those associated with gangs, but also 
police officers and innocent bystanders. It impacts not only 
individuals, but also our communities.
  It stops mothers from allowing their children to play outside. It 
prevents

[[Page S1435]]

the elderly from taking walks in their neighborhoods. And it creates an 
environment of fear.
  It is past time for the Federal Government to provide a hand of 
assistance to state and local law enforcement. And it is past time to 
come to grips with our country's escalating levels of gang violence.
  Just last month the FBI released its Uniform Crime Report for the 
first half of 2006. The news was disturbing.
  The report showed an alarming increase in homicides, assaults, 
robberies and other violent crimes across the U.S.--a surge of nearly 
3.7 percent for the first 6 months of 2006.
  This, of course follows on the heels of the FBI's 2005 figures, which 
had showed a 2.5 percent jump in violent crime.
  At the time, those 2005 figures had represented the largest increase 
in violent crime in the U.S. in 15 years. But this newly announced 
increase for the first half of 2006 is almost 50 percent higher.
  Of course, a big part of this increase is due to gang violence. Just 
as we heard when the 2005 figures were released, criminologists point 
to the spread of violent street gangs as a major cause of the 2006 
increase in violent crime as well.
  The warnings we have received about the links between the increase in 
violent crime and gangs have been steady and consistent.
  When the FBI announced its 2005 figures last June, the Washington 
Post reported how criminal justice experts specifically identified ``an 
influx of gangs into medium-sized cities'' as a big reason for this 
increase. According to the Los Angeles Times, Houston police attributed 
their 2005 increase to gang members who evacuated New Orleans after 
Katrina.
  When the 2006 figures were announced, the Washington Post quoted 
criminologist James Alan Fox, who described how ``[w]e have many high-
crime areas where gangs have made a comeback.'' The L.A. Times noted 
how ``[e]xperts said the crime upsurge reflected an increase in gang 
violence, particularly in midsized cities.'' Cities like Houston, which 
experienced a massive 28 percent increase in violent crime.
  The headline for the Sacramento Bee, reporting on the FBI's 31 
percent reported increase in violent crime for that county, said it 
all: ``Gangs blamed for increase, which is part of [a] national hike in 
mayhem in '06.''
  Even among the cities that experienced a 2006 reduction in violent 
crime--such as Los Angeles, which moved into the ranks of the safest 
cities in the U.S.--Mayor Villairaigosa described gang violence as the 
``glaring exception.'' Gang crime was up by 14 percent in Los Angeles--
and up 40 percent in San Fernando Valley, and 57 percent of Los 
Angeles' 478 homicides for 2006 were attributed to gangs--up 50 percent 
from 2005. And 86 percent of those murder victims were African American 
or Latino.
  There can no longer be serious debate that gang violence is a big 
part of this problem.
  The problem of gang violence in America is daunting. According to the 
FBI, there are now at least 30,000 gangs nationwide, with 800,000 
members.
  In California, the State attorney general now estimates that there 
are 171,000 juveniles and adults committed to criminal street gangs and 
their way of life. That's greater than the population of 28 California 
counties.
  From 1992 to 2003, there were more than 7,500 gang-related homicides 
reported in California.
  In 2004, more than one-third of the 2,000 homicides in California--
698--were gang-related.
  And it is worse among teens and young adults. In that same year, 
nearly 50 percent of the murders of 18 to 29 year olds were gang 
related. And nearly 60 percent of the murders of teens under 18 were 
gang related.
  The list of people murdered by gangs includes some of our finest law 
enforcement officers:
  Oceanside Police Officer, Dan Bessant, gunned down from behind just 
last month, in an incident described as eerily similar to a similar 
killing in 2003, when Oceanside Police Officer, Tony Zepetella, was 
shot and killed by a known gang member.
  Los Angeles Police Officer Ricardo Lizarraga, killed while responding 
to a domestic violence call, by a man who drew a gun and shot him twice 
in the back. The suspect was a known member of the Rollin20s Bloods.
  Merced Police Officer Stephan Gray, a member of his department's gang 
violence unit. Gray was shot and killed when a suspect--a gang member 
he had encountered before--fired two bullets into his chest.
  Los Angeles Sherriff's Deputy Jeffrey Ortiz: As a member of his 
department's anti-gang task force, Ortiz had been going door to door in 
a gang-plagued neighborhood of L.A. He had just knocked on a door and 
was checking IDs when he was shot in the head at point-blank range. The 
alleged gunman is a suspected gang member wanted on an outstanding 
warrant for attempted murder.
  Burbank Police Officer Matthew Pavelka: Two gunmen whom he had 
stopped for driving without license plates got out and showered him 
with gunfire. They were allegedly affiliated with the Vineland Boys 
gang.
  California Highway Patrol Officer Thomas Steiner, killed after 
walking out of the Pomona courthouse after testifying in a series of 
traffic cases, by a 16-year-old intent on ``killing a cop'' to prove 
himself to the Pomona 12th street gang.
  San Francisco Police Officer Isaac Espinoza: The first San Francisco 
police officer slain on duty in more than a decade, killed when an 
apparent ``Westmob'' gang member fired 14 rounds from an AK-47 assault 
rifle.
  Gang killings also impact children and families. Unfortunately, 3-
year-old Kaitlyn Avila is not alone: There is also 11-year-old Mynisha 
Crenshaw of San Bernardino, CA, a little girl shot and killed in 
November 2005;
  Seven-week-old infant Glenn ``Baby G'' Molex, shot and killed on 
September 28, 2003, by one of the ``Down Below'' Gang after 28 bullets 
penetrated his family's apartment in San Francisco's Bayview District;
  Joseph Swift, a 13-year-old boy shot outside a home after attending 
church in Los Angeles in 2003; and
  Eight-year-old Sunny Elijah Peralez, shot in East Los Angeles by the 
Ghetto Boyz in 1999.
  And this problem extends far beyond California--as evidenced by 8-
year-old Kyron Butler, killed by a stray bullet during a Jersey Park 
Boys gang shootout in Smithfield, VA, in 2003, and 9-year-old Genesis 
Gonzalez, a little girl shot by a car of Crips gang members in Nevada 
in 2002.
  As gangs have continued to spread across our country, increasing in 
violence and power in every State, they are no longer just a big city 
problem. They have metastasized from Los Angeles and Chicago to the 
medium and smaller cities where they face less competition.
  The FBI now estimates that gangs are having an impact on at least 
2,500 communities across the nation.
  In the latest FBI statistics, violent crime and murder grew fastest 
in the midsized and smaller cities--not in our largest urban areas. The 
average midsized city, in fact, had a surge in overall violent crime of 
more than 5 percent in a single year.
  It is clear that gangs engage in drug trafficking, robbery, 
extortion, prostitution, gun trafficking, and murder. They destroy 
neighborhoods, cripple families and kill innocent people.
  Los Angeles Police Department Chief Bill Bratton put it bluntly:

       There is nothing more insidious than these gangs. They are 
     worse than the Mafia. Show me a year in New York where the 
     Mafia indiscriminately killed 300 people. You can't.

  Our national gang problem is immense and growing, and it is not going 
away. Our cities and States need help. The many law enforcement 
officers that have spoken to me and others in my office say one thing 
clearly--short-term infusions are great, but what they really need is a 
long-term Federal commitment to combat gang violence.
  A massive report just prepared for the City of Los Angeles even 
suggested that what is needed is a ``Marshal Plan'' initiative to 
combat gang violence.
  Senator Hatch and I have been introducing comprehensive Federal gang 
legislation for over a decade. Our gang bills have been modified and 
refined over the years, most recently in legislation that we negotiated 
with the House for possible inclusion in the DOD Authorization bill 
last year.
  The bill that we introduce today essentially takes that bill, but 
removes

[[Page S1436]]

all of its new death penalties. It has no mandatory minimums, and we 
have eliminated juvenile justice changes that previously proved to be 
an impediment to the larger bill's passage.
  The bill that we offer today will provide a comprehensive solution to 
gang violence, combining enforcement and prevention efforts in a 
collaborative approach that has proven effective in models like 
Operation Ceasefire, and in Modesto, CA.
  This bill would establish new Federal gang crimes and tougher Federal 
penalties.
  Today's Federal street gang laws are frankly weak, and are almost 
never used. Currently, a person committing a gang crime might have 
extra time tacked on to the end of their Federal sentence. That is 
because Federal law currently focuses on gang violence only as a 
sentencing enhancement, rather than a crime unto itself.
  The bill that I offer today would make it a separate Federal crime 
for any criminal street gang member to commit, conspire or attempt to 
commit violent crimes--including murder, kidnapping, arson, extortion--
in furtherance of the gang.
  And the penalties for gang members committing such crimes would 
increase considerably.
  For gang-related murder, kidnapping, aggravated sexual abuse or 
maiming, the penalties would range up to life imprisonment.
  For any other serious violent felony, the penalty would range up to 
30 years--which in the Federal system means without parole.
  And for other crimes of violence--defined as the actual or intended 
use of physical force against the person of another--the penalty could 
bring up to 20 years in prison.
  The bill would also create a new crime for recruiting juveniles and 
adults into a criminal street gang, with a penalty of up to 10 years, 
or if the recruiting involved a juvenile or recruiting from prison, up 
to 20 years;
  Create new Federal crimes for committing violent crimes in connection 
with drug trafficking, and increase existing penalties for violent 
crimes in aid of racketeering;
  Enact a host of other violent crime reforms, including closing a 
loophole that had allowed carjackers to avoid convictions, increasing 
the penalties for those who use guns in violent crimes or transfer guns 
knowing they will be used in crimes, limiting bail for violent felons 
who possess firearms, and in a number of other respects cracking down 
harder on those who commit violent crimes; and
  Make a long-term Federal commitment to fight gangs, by authorizing 
over $1 billion in new funds over the next 5 years for enforcement, 
prevention, and witness protection.
  This would include $500 million for the development of High Intensity 
Interstate Gang Activity Areas, or HIIGAAs.
  These HIIGAAs would mirror the successful HIDTA--High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area model--under which Federal, State and local agents 
coordinate investigations and prosecutions. And this $500 million would 
also be split 50/50, so that for every dollar spent on law enforcement, 
a dollar would be spent on prevention and intervention.
  This balanced approach--of prevention and intervention plus tough 
penalties--will send a clear message to gang members: a new day has 
arrived. This bill will provide them with new opportunities, with 
schools and social services agencies empowered to make alternatives to 
gangs a realistic option. But if gang members continue to engage in 
violence, they will face new and serious Federal consequences.
  I am pleased to report that this bill has already been endorsed by 
the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, and the National Association of Police Officers.
  For more than 10 years now, Senator Hatch and I have been trying to 
pass Federal anti-gang legislation. There have been times when we have 
gotten close. Unfortunately, while Congress has failed to act, violent 
street gangs have only expanded nationwide and become more empowered 
and entrenched in other States and communities.
  I believe this bill can pass the Senate and be enacted into law, 
especially after these changes that we have made and our previous 
negotiations conducted with members of the House and Senate.
  The time has arrived for us to finally address this problem, and this 
bill is well-suited to help solve it. I urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Rockefeller):
  S. 460. A bill to make determinations by the United States Trade 
Representative under title III of the Trade Act of 1974 reviewable by 
the Court of International Trade and to ensure that the United States 
Trade Representative considers petitions to enforce United States Trade 
rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, when reflecting on the attributes that have 
made our great country prosperous--its free market system, its hard-
working and enterprising people, its treasured natural resources--we 
must not overlook the rule of law as an equal, if not paramount element 
of the blessings we have secured. Since our Nation's founding, 
Americans have recognized that the success of worthy enterprises in a 
functioning market require the government--rather than choosing winners 
and losers--to consistently and dispassionately enforce the rules that 
bind all actors.
  While our legal system evolved over the course of centuries to 
provide for the rule of law throughout our country, the fates of 
American people and businesses have become increasingly bound to 
counterparts in the world beyond our borders. Whether called 
``Globalization'', ``Internationalization'' or some other moniker, the 
rapidly growing number of connections between suppliers, consumers and 
financiers across national boundaries means that agreements breached 
and laws broken on the far side of the world can harm companies and 
workers here at home.
  Yet our government has failed to adapt to this new reality. While 
foreign governments engage in market-distorting currency manipulation, 
refuse to protect intellectual property rights and turn a blind eye to 
labor exploitation--each a violation of trade obligations to the United 
States--ours demurs with communiques and consultations, rather than 
formal enforcement action. What makes this abdication of its duty to 
defend the U.S. economy from unfair foreign practices especially 
troubling is that the tools to do so already exist in the dispute 
resolution provisions of various trade agreements.
  The distressing reality is that U.S. industry and labor groups are 
often rebuffed in attempts to petition the United States Trade 
Representative to initiate a formal investigation or bring a dispute 
resolution action under the relevant multilateral or bilateral trade 
agreement, as there seems to be considerable institutional momentum 
among senior officials at USTR and elsewhere in the Administration 
against bringing formal enforcement action against certain trade 
partners, and China in particular.
  USTR's handling of the trade effects of China's currency manipulation 
practices is representative of the problem. In September 2004, a U.S. 
industry coalition filed a petition under Section 301 of the Trade Act 
of 1974--the statute setting forth general procedures for the 
enforcement of U.S. trade rights--alleging that Chinese currency 
manipulation practices constituted a violation of China's obligations 
to the United States under World Trade Organization rules, and calling 
for USTR to conduct an investigation of such practices. USTR rejected 
the petition on the day it was filed, contending that ``an 
investigation would not be effective in addressing the acts, policies, 
and practices covered in the petition. The Administration is currently 
involved in efforts to address with the Government of China the 
currency valuation issues raised in the petition. The USTR believes 
that initiation of an investigation under [the Section 301 process] 
would hamper, rather than advance, Administration efforts to address 
Chinese currency valuation policies.'' Shortly thereafter, in November 
of 2004, a Congressional coalition of 12 Senators and 23 
Representatives filed a similar Section 301 petition, which was 
rejected by USTR on the same grounds.
  As noted in USTR's rejection of these petitions, current law allows 
the Executive to decline to initiate an industry-

[[Page S1437]]

requested investigation where it determines that action under Section 
301 would be ineffective in addressing the offending act, policy or 
practice. The merits of USTR's determination are unreviewable under 
current law. USTR used this loophole to avoid having to even 
investigate industry's claim, let alone take formal action against 
China. And as we now know, the Administration's ``soft'' approach to 
Chinese currency manipulation has itself proven ineffective in 
addressing the problem in the two years since these filings.
  It is to prevent further disregard for U.S. businesses and workers 
seeking a fair and consequential hearing of their concerns with foreign 
trade practices that Senator Rockefeller and I today introduce the 
Trade Complaint and Litigation Accountability Improvement Measures Act, 
or the ``Trade CLAIM Act''.
  The Trade CLAIM Act would amend the Section 301 process to require 
the United States Trade Representative to act upon an interested 
party's petition to take formal action in cases where a U.S. trade 
right has been violated, except in instances where: the matter has 
already been addressed by the relevant trade dispute settlement body; 
the foreign country is taking imminent steps to end to ameliorate the 
effects of the practice; taking action would do more harm than good to 
the U.S. economy; or taking action would cause serious harm to the 
national security of the United States.
  The bill would also grant the Court of International Trade 
jurisdiction to review de novo USTR's denials of Section 301 industry 
petitions to investigate and take enforcement action against unfair 
foreign trade laws or practices. Such jurisdiction would include the 
ability to review USTR determinations that U.S. trade rights have not 
been violated as alleged in industry petitions, and the sufficiency of 
formal actions taken by USTR in response to foreign trade laws or 
practices determined to violate U.S. trade rights.
  The Trade CLAIM Act would give U.S. businesses and workers a greater 
say in whether, when and how U.S. trade rights should be enforced. The 
bill would be particularly beneficial to small businesses, which--like 
other petitioners in Section 301 cases--currently have no avenue to 
formally challenge the merits of USTR's decisions, and are often 
drowned out by large business interests in industry-wide Section 301 
actions initiated by USTR.
  By providing for judicial review of USTR decisions not to enforce 
U.S. trade rights, the bill provides for impartial third party 
oversight by a specialty court not subject to political and diplomatic 
pressures. In delinking discreet trade disputes from the mercurial 
machinations of international relations, this Act would end the 
sacrifice of individual industries on the negotiating table, and leave 
it to the free market--uniformly operating under the trade rules to 
which our trading partners have already agreed--to decide their fate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY:
  S. 461. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide an 
Inspector General for the judicial branch, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 461

       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 ``Judicial Transparency and 
     Ethics Enhancement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.

       (a) Establishment and Duties.--Part III of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

        ``CHAPTER 60--INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

``Sec.
``1021. Establishment.
``1022. Appointment, term, and removal of Inspector General.
``1023. Duties.
``1024. Powers.
``1025. Reports.
``1026. Whistleblower protection.

     ``Sec. 1021. Establishment

       ``There is established for the judicial branch of the 
     Government the Office of Inspector General for the Judicial 
     Branch (in this chapter referred to as the `Office').

     ``Sec. 1022. Appointment, term, and removal of Inspector 
       General

       ``(a) Appointment.--The head of the Office shall be the 
     Inspector General, who shall be appointed by the Chief 
     Justice of the United States after consultation with the 
     majority and minority leaders of the Senate and the Speaker 
     and minority leader of the House of Representatives.
       ``(b) Term.--The Inspector General shall serve for a term 
     of 4 years and may be reappointed by the Chief Justice of the 
     United States for any number of additional terms.
       ``(c) Removal.--The Inspector General may be removed from 
     office by the Chief Justice of the United States. The Chief 
     Justice shall communicate the reasons for any such removal to 
     both Houses of Congress.

     ``Sec. 1023. Duties

       ``With respect to the judicial branch, the Office shall--
       ``(1) conduct investigations of alleged misconduct in the 
     judicial branch (other than the United States Supreme Court) 
     under chapter 16, that may require oversight or other action 
     within the judicial branch or by Congress;
       ``(2) conduct investigations of alleged misconduct in the 
     United States Supreme Court, that may require oversight or 
     other action within the judicial branch or by Congress;
       ``(3) conduct and supervise audits and investigations;
       ``(4) prevent and detect waste, fraud, and abuse; and
       ``(5) recommend changes in laws or regulations governing 
     the judicial branch.

     ``Sec. 1024. Powers

       ``(a) Powers.--In carrying out the duties of the Office, 
     the Inspector General shall have the power to--
       ``(1) make investigations and reports;
       ``(2) obtain information or assistance from any Federal, 
     State, or local governmental agency, or other entity, or unit 
     thereof, including all information kept in the course of 
     business by the Judicial Conference of the United States, the 
     judicial councils of circuits, the Administrative Office of 
     the United States Courts, and the United States Sentencing 
     Commission;
       ``(3) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses, and the production of such 
     books, records, correspondence memoranda, papers, and 
     documents, which subpoena, in the case of contumacy or 
     refusal to obey, shall be enforceable by civil action;
       ``(4) administer to or take from any person an oath, 
     affirmation, or affidavit;
       ``(5) employ such officers and employees, subject to the 
     provisions of title 5, governing appointments in the 
     competitive service, and the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to 
     classification and General Schedule pay rates;
       ``(6) obtain services as authorized by section 3109 of 
     title 5 at daily rates not to exceed the equivalent rate for 
     a position at level IV of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5315; and
       ``(7) the extent and in such amounts as may be provided in 
     advance by appropriations Acts, to enter into contracts and 
     other arrangements for audits, studies, analyses, and other 
     services with public agencies and with private persons, and 
     to make such payments as may be necessary to carry out the 
     duties of the Office.
       ``(b) Chapter 16 Matters.--The Inspector General shall not 
     commence an investigation under section 1023(1) until the 
     denial of a petition for review by the judicial council of 
     the circuit under section 352(c) of this title or upon 
     referral or certification to the Judicial Conference of the 
     United States of any matter under section 354(b) of this 
     title.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The Inspector General shall not have the 
     authority to--
       ``(1) investigate or review any matter that is directly 
     related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling by 
     any judge, justice, or court; or
       ``(2) punish or discipline any judge, justice, or court.

     ``Sec. 1025. Reports

       ``(a) When To Be Made.--The Inspector General shall--
       ``(1) make an annual report to the Chief Justice and to 
     Congress relating to the activities of the Office; and
       ``(2) make prompt reports to the Chief Justice and to 
     Congress on matters that may require action by the Chief 
     Justice or Congress.
       ``(b) Sensitive Matter.--If a report contains sensitive 
     matter, the Inspector General may so indicate and Congress 
     may receive that report in closed session.
       ``(c) Duty to Inform Attorney General.--In carrying out the 
     duties of the Office, the Inspector General shall report 
     expeditiously to the Attorney General whenever the Inspector 
     General has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a 
     violation of Federal criminal law.

     ``Sec. 1026. Whistleblower protection

       ``(a) In General.--No officer, employee, agent, contractor 
     or subcontractor in the judicial branch may discharge, 
     demote, threaten, suspend, harass or in any other manner 
     discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions 
     of employment because

[[Page S1438]]

     of any lawful act done by the employee to provide 
     information, cause information to be provided, or otherwise 
     assist in an investigation regarding any possible violation 
     of Federal law or regulation, or misconduct, by a judge, 
     justice, or any other employee in the judicial branch, which 
     may assist the Inspector General in the performance of duties 
     under this chapter.
       ``(b) Civil Action.--An employee injured by a violation of 
     subsection (a) may, in a civil action, obtain appropriate 
     relief.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of 
     chapters for part III of title 28, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:

``60. Inspector General for the judicial branch.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. Ensign):
  S. 462. A bill to approve the settlement of the water rights claims 
of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation in 
Nevada, to require the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the 
settlement, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
resolve a Nevada water rights matter that has lasted more than a 
decade.
  This bill, the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Water Rights 
Settlement Act, would ratify an agreement reached last fall by the 
State of Nevada, the Tribes, many individual water users, and the 
United States. I am pleased that the parties came together, asserted 
their interests, made compromises, and reached an agreement. Each party 
had different--and frequently conflicting--water claims, water needs, 
and ideas on water use and conservation. I appreciate the parties' hard 
work and their commitment to end expensive litigation to reach an 
agreement that will permanently resolve the water rights matters along 
the East Fork of the Owyhee River. This bill, if enacted, will ratify 
the agreement reached by the parties.
  The primary purpose of this bill is to approve, ratify and confirm 
the agreement that addresses the Tribes' water rights, the rights of 
upstream water users, and the implementation of a plan for the parties 
to exercise their water rights.
  The Agreement quantifies the Tribes' surface water rights and 
groundwater claims in Nevada. The Tribes will establish a water code 
and administer the quantified rights on the Reservation accordingly.
  The Agreement also states that the water rights of the upstream water 
users who live off the Reservation will be determined and administered 
by the State Engineer. Under the settlement, the parties have agreed to 
a limitation on the number of acres that can be irrigated by the 
upstream water users.
  The settlement's implementation plan describes how the rights of the 
respective parties will be administered and disputes will be resolved. 
It describes that the surface water basin will be closed, and provides 
that a groundwater basin will be declared a basin in need of additional 
administration under state law. The agreement further addresses 
operation of the system particularly during times of shortage. Under 
this part of the plan, upstream water users gain a small amount of 
water storage in the Wild Horse Reservoir.
  The second purpose of this bill is to settle the Tribes' long-
standing claims against the United States for damages caused by the 
Bureau of Reclamation's Duck Valley Irrigation Project, related Bureau 
of Indian Affairs projects, and the mismanagement of tribal resources, 
particularly the destruction of the Tribe's salmon and steelhead trout 
fishing stock.
  The Shoshone-Paiutes have a long history in Nevada and Idaho. The 
Tribes roamed the region well before the Duck Valley Reservation was 
established by Executive Order in 1877. The Reservation today 
encompasses approximately 290,000 acres of land held in trust by the 
federal government for the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes.
  The Reservation draws water from three primary sources: 1. the East 
Fork of the Owyhee River that flows through the Reservation from south 
to north from the Nevada side; 2. Blue Creek, a tributary to the Owyhee 
that flows north to south through the Reservation until it meets the 
Owyhee on the Idaho side of the Reservation; and 3. Mary's Creek, 
located in the northeastern part of the Reservation, flowing 
northeasterly through the Reservation and into Idaho.
  When the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Duck Valley Indian Irrigation 
Project was initiated in the 1930s, the project placed over 12,000 
acres of land under irrigation. Like many Indian water projects, the 
Project was only partially completed and never fully funded, which 
accounted for the Projects' disrepair, resulted in reduced storage 
capacity, and an inability to reach the goal of maximizing the acres in 
production.
  With the construction of the Bureau of Reclamation's Owyhee 
Irrigation Project Dam in the 1930s, the Tribes' salmon runs were 
destroyed.
  The affects of these federal projects on the Tribes' resources and 
culture and the Federal Government's failure to protect tribal water 
rights require places the United States in the position of compensating 
the Tribes for their loss. The Tribes value the loss to their resources 
and culture at level much higher than what Senator Ensign and I 
propose. While the United States can never fully compensate the Tribes 
for their loss, I appreciate the Tribes' willingness to accept the 
settlement figure and put an end to this painful part of our sovereign-
to-sovereign relationship.
  The bill, if enacted, would authorize two settlement funds--a 
development fund and a maintenance fund.
  The development fund, to be authorized at $45 million over 5 fiscal 
years, would fund tribal water development projects. After careful 
research and consultation with its members and advisors, the Tribes 
have identified many projects to increase their economic opportunities. 
The Tribes are preparing to rehabilitate the dilapidated Duck Valley 
Irrigation Project, increase the amount of irrigable lands in 
agricultural production, develop a Wildlife Habitat Project, and 
undertake other economic development projects to enhance the 
Reservation economy and contribute to the permanent homeland purpose of 
the Duck Valley Reservation.
  The maintenance fund, authorized at $15 million over 5 fiscal years, 
would fund the refurbishment and maintenance of the Reservation's water 
infrastructure.
  The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of Duck Valley Water Rights Settlement Act 
is important legislation. It reflects the compromises of our 
constituents who worked hard to reach agreement on matters that affect 
their livelihoods and cultures. I believe this bill benefit the Tribes, 
the ranchers and upstream water users, and those residents in the 
northern Nevada and southern Idaho region.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the 
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to ensure timely review and passage 
of this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 462

       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 ``Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of 
     Duck Valley Water Rights Settlement Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) it is the policy of the United States, in accordance 
     with the trust responsibility of the United States to Indian 
     tribes, to promote Indian self-determination and economic 
     self-sufficiency and to settle Indian water rights claims 
     without lengthy and costly litigation, if practicable;
       (2) quantifying rights to water and development of 
     facilities needed to use tribal water supplies is essential 
     to the development of viable Indian reservation economies and 
     the establishment of a permanent reservation homeland;
       (3) uncertainty concerning the extent of the right to water 
     of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes has limited the access of the 
     Tribes to water and financial resources necessary to achieve 
     self-determination and self-sufficiency;
       (4) in 2006, the Tribes, the State of Idaho, the affected 
     individual water users, and the United States resolved all 
     tribal claims to water rights in the Snake River Basin 
     Adjudication through a consent decree entered by the District 
     Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, 
     requiring no further Federal action to implement the Tribes' 
     water rights in the State of Idaho;

[[Page S1439]]

       (5) as of the date of enactment of this Act, proceedings to 
     determine the extent and nature of the water rights of the 
     Tribes are pending before the Nevada State Engineer;
       (6) final resolution through litigation of the water claims 
     of the Tribes will--
       (A) take many years;
       (B) entail great expense;
       (C) continue to limit the access of the Tribes to water, 
     with economic and social consequences;
       (D) prolong uncertainty relating to the availability of 
     water supplies; and
       (E) seriously impair long-term economic planning and 
     development for all parties to the litigation;
       (7) after many years of negotiation, the United States, the 
     Tribes, the State, and the upstream water users have entered 
     into a settlement agreement to resolve permanently all water 
     rights of the Tribes in the State; and
       (8) the Tribes have certain water-related claims for 
     damages against the United States.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to resolve outstanding issues with respect to the East 
     Fork of the Owyhee River in the State in such a manner as to 
     provide important benefits to--
       (A) the United States;
       (B) the State;
       (C) the Tribes; and
       (D) the upstream water users;
       (2) to achieve a fair, equitable, and final settlement of 
     all claims of the Tribes, members of the Tribes, and the 
     United States on behalf of the Tribes to the East Fork of the 
     Owyhee River in the State;
       (3) to ratify and provide for the enforcement of the 
     Agreement among the parties to the litigation;
       (4) to resolve the Tribes' water-related claims for damages 
     against the United States;
       (5) to require the Secretary to perform all obligations of 
     the Secretary under the Agreement and this Act; and
       (6) to authorize the actions and appropriations necessary 
     for the United States to meet the obligations of the United 
     States under the Agreement and this Act.

     SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the agreement 
     entitled the ``Agreement to Establish the Relative Water 
     Rights of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley 
     Indian Reservation and the Upstream Water Users, East Fork 
     Owyhee River'' (including all attachments to that agreement).
       (2) Development fund.--The term ``Development Fund'' means 
     the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Water Rights Development Fund 
     established by section 7(b)(1).
       (3) East fork of the owyhee river.--The term ``East Fork of 
     the Owyhee River'' means the portion of the east fork of the 
     Owyhee River that is located in the State.
       (4) Maintenance fund.--The term ``Maintenance Fund'' means 
     the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes Operation and Maintenance Fund 
     established by section 7(c)(1).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Nevada.
       (7) Tribal water right.--The term ``tribal water right'' 
     means a right of the Tribes described in the Agreement 
     relating to water, including groundwater, storage water, and 
     surface water.
       (8) Tribes.--The term ``Tribes'' means the Shoshone-Paiute 
     Tribes of the Duck Valley Indian Reservation.
       (9) Upstream water user.--The term ``upstream water user'' 
     means an individual water user that--
       (A) is located upstream from the Duck Valley Indian 
     Reservation on the East Fork of the Owyhee River; and
       (B) is a signatory to the Agreement.

     SEC. 5. APPROVAL, RATIFICATION, AND CONFIRMATION OF 
                   AGREEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Except as provided in section 1f of 
     article III of the Agreement, and except to the extent that 
     the Agreement otherwise conflicts with this Act, the 
     Agreement is approved, ratified, and confirmed.
       (b) Performance of Obligations.--The Secretary and any 
     other head of a Federal agency obligated under the Agreement 
     shall perform any action necessary to carry out an obligation 
     under the Agreement in accordance with this Act.

     SEC. 6. TRIBAL WATER RIGHTS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall hold the tribal water 
     rights in trust on behalf of the United States for the 
     benefit of the Tribes.
       (b) Administration.--
       (1) Enactment of water code.--Not later than 3 years after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Tribes shall enact a 
     water code to administer tribal water rights.
       (2) Interim administration.--The Secretary shall regulate 
     the tribal water rights during the period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which 
     the Tribes enact a water code under paragraph (1).
       (c) Loss of Tribal Water Rights.--The tribal water rights 
     shall not be subject to loss by abandonment, forfeiture, or 
     nonuse.

     SEC. 7. DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE FUNDS.

       (a) Definition of Funds.--In this section, the term 
     ``Funds'' means--
       (1) the Development Fund; and
       (2) the Maintenance Fund.
       (b) Development Fund.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the ``Shoshone-Paiute 
     Tribes Water Rights Development Fund''.
       (2) Use of funds.--The Tribes shall use amounts in the 
     Development Fund--
       (A) to pay or reimburse costs incurred by the Tribes in 
     acquiring land and water rights;
       (B) for purposes of cultural preservation;
       (C) to restore or improve fish or wildlife habitat;
       (D) for fish or wildlife production, water resource 
     development, agricultural development, rehabilitation, and 
     expansion of the Duck Valley Irrigation Project;
       (E) for water resource planning and development; or
       (F) to pay the costs of designing and constructing water 
     supply and sewer systems for tribal communities, including--
       (i) a water quality testing laboratory;
       (ii) other appropriate water-related projects and other 
     related economic development projects;
       (iii) the development of a water code; and
       (iv) other costs of implementing the Agreement.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary for deposit in the 
     Development Fund $9,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012.
       (c) Maintenance Fund.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund to be known as the ``Shoshone-Paiute 
     Tribes Operation and Maintenance Fund''.
       (2) Use of funds.--The Tribes shall use amounts in the 
     Maintenance Fund to pay or provide reimbursement for the 
     costs of--
       (A) operation and maintenance of the Duck Valley Irrigation 
     Project and other water-related projects funded under this 
     Act; or
       (B) water supply and sewer systems for tribal communities, 
     including the operation and maintenance costs of a water 
     quality testing laboratory.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary for deposit in the 
     Maintenance Fund $3,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012.
       (d) Administration of Funds.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, in accordance with the 
     American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 
     U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), this Act, and the Agreement, shall 
     manage the Funds, including by investing amounts from the 
     Funds in accordance with--
       (A) the Act of April 1, 1880 (25 U.S.C. 161); and
       (B) the first section of the Act of June 24, 1938 (25 
     U.S.C. 162a).
       (2) Distributions.--
       (A) Withdrawals.--
       (i) In general.--During any fiscal year, the Tribes may 
     withdraw amounts from the Funds if the Secretary approves a 
     plan of the Tribes to withdraw amounts under section 202 of 
     the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 
     (25 U.S.C. 4022).
       (ii) Plan to withdraw amounts.--

       (I) Inclusion.--In addition to any information required 
     under section 202 of the American Indian Trust Fund 
     Management Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4022), a plan of the 
     Tribes to withdraw amounts under this subparagraph shall 
     include a requirement that the Tribes spend the amounts 
     withdrawn from the Funds during a fiscal year for 1 or more 
     uses described in subsection (b)(2) or (c)(2).
       (II) Enforcement.--The Secretary may take administrative or 
     judicial action to enforce a plan of the Tribes to withdraw 
     amounts.

       (B) Remaining amounts.--
       (i) In general.--On approval of an expenditure plan 
     submitted by the Tribes under clause (ii), the Secretary 
     shall distribute to the Tribes amounts in the Funds not 
     withdrawn by the Tribes during the preceding fiscal year.
       (ii) Expenditure plan.--

       (I) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Tribes shall 
     submit to the Secretary for approval an expenditure plan for 
     amounts described in clause (i).
       (II) Inclusions.--An expenditure plan under subclause (I) 
     shall include--

       (aa) an accounting by the Tribes of any funds withdrawn by 
     the Tribes from the Funds during the preceding fiscal year, 
     including a description of any use by the Tribes of the funds 
     and the amount remaining in the Funds for the preceding 
     fiscal year; and
       (bb) a description of the means by which the Tribes will 
     use any amount distributed under this subparagraph.
       (iii) Approval.--The Secretary shall approve an expenditure 
     plan under this subparagraph if the Secretary determines that 
     the plan is--

       (I) reasonable; and
       (II) consistent with this Act and the Agreement.

       (C) Limitations.--
       (i) Timing.--No amount from the Funds (including any 
     interest income accruing to the Funds) shall be distributed 
     until the waivers under section 8(a) take effect.
       (ii) No per capita distributions.--No amount from the Funds 
     (including any interest income accruing to the Funds) shall 
     be distributed to a member of the Tribes on a per capita 
     basis.

[[Page S1440]]

       (3) Funding agreement.--Notwithstanding any other provision 
     of this Act, on receipt of a request from the Tribes, the 
     Secretary shall include an amount appropriated under this 
     subsection in the funding agreement of the Tribes under title 
     IV of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 458aa et seq.), for use in accordance with 
     subsections (b)(2) and (c)(2).
       (4) Liability.--The Secretary and the Secretary of the 
     Treasury shall not retain any liability for the expenditure 
     or investment of amounts distributed to the Tribes under this 
     subsection.
       (5) Capital costs nonreimbursable.--The capital costs 
     associated with the Duck Valley Indian Irrigation Project as 
     of the date of enactment of this Act, including any capital 
     cost incurred with funds distributed under this subsection 
     for that project, shall be permanently nonreimbursable.

     SEC. 8. TRIBAL WAIVER OF CLAIMS.

       (a) Waivers.--
       (1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in the 
     Agreement and this Act, the Tribes, and the United States on 
     behalf of the Tribes, waive and release--
       (A) all claims to water in the East Fork of the Owyhee 
     River and all claims to injury relating to that water; and
       (B) all claims against the State, any agency or political 
     subdivision of the State, or any person, entity, or 
     corporation relating to injury to a right of the Tribe under 
     any Executive order entered on behalf of the Tribes, to the 
     extent that the injury--
       (i) resulted from a flow modification or a reduction in the 
     quantity of water available; and
       (ii) accrued on or before the effective date of the 
     Agreement.
       (2) Enforcement of waivers.--A waiver of a claim under this 
     subsection by the Tribes, or the United States on behalf of 
     the Tribes, shall be enforceable in the appropriate forum.
       (3) Effective date.--A waiver by the Tribes, or the United 
     States on behalf of the Tribes, of a claim under this 
     subsection shall take effect on the date on which the 
     Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a statement of 
     findings that includes a finding that--
       (A) all parties to the Agreement have executed the 
     Agreement;
       (B) a decree acceptable to each party to the Agreement has 
     been entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Elko 
     County, Nevada; and
       (C) the Agreement has been ratified under section 5(a).
       (b) Waiver and Release of Claims Against the United 
     States.--
       (1) In general.--In consideration of performance by the 
     United States of all actions required by the Agreement and 
     this Act, including the authorization of appropriations under 
     subsections (b)(3) and (c)(3) of section 7, the Tribe shall 
     execute a waiver and release of any claim against the United 
     States for--
       (A) a water right in the East Fork of the Owyhee River;
       (B) an injury to a right described in subparagraph (A);
       (C) breach of trust--
       (i) for failure to protect, acquire, or develop a water 
     right that accrued on or before the effective date of a 
     waiver under this subsection; or
       (ii) arising out of the negotiation or adoption of the 
     Agreement; or
       (D) a fishing right under any Executive order, to the 
     extent that an injury to such a right--
       (i) resulted from a reduction in the quantity of water 
     available in the East Fork of the Owyhee River; and
       (ii) accrued on or before the effective date of a waiver 
     under this subsection.
       (2) Effective date.--
       (A) In general.--The waiver under paragraph (1) takes 
     effect on the date on which the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated under subsections (b)(3) and (c)(3) of section 7 
     are distributed to the Tribes.
       (B) Tolling of claims.--
       (i) In general.--Each applicable period of limitation and 
     time-based equitable defense relating to a claim described in 
     paragraph (1) shall be tolled for the period beginning on the 
     date of enactment of this Act and ending on the date on which 
     the amounts authorized to be appropriated under subsections 
     (b)(3) and (c)(3) of section 7 are distributed to the Tribes.
       (ii) Effect of subparagraph.--Nothing in this subparagraph 
     revives any claim or tolls any period of limitation or time-
     based equitable defense that expired before the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Retention of Rights.--
       (1) In general.--The Tribes shall retain all rights not 
     waived by the Tribes, or the United States on behalf of the 
     Tribes, in the Agreement or this Act.
       (2) Claims outside reservation.--Nothing in the Agreement 
     or this Act shall be considered to be a waiver by the Tribes 
     of any claim to a right on land outside the Duck Valley 
     Indian Reservation.
       (3) Future acquisition of water rights.--Nothing in the 
     Agreement or this Act precludes the Tribes, or the United 
     States as trustee for the Tribes, from acquiring a water 
     right in the State to the same extent as any other entity in 
     the State, in accordance with State law.

     SEC. 9. MISCELLANEOUS.

       (a) General Disclaimer.--The parties to the Agreement 
     expressly reserve all rights not specifically granted, 
     recognized, or relinquished by--
       (1) the settlement described in the Agreement; or
       (2) this Act.
       (b) Limitation of Claims and Rights.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) establishes a standard for quantifying--
       (A) a Federal reserved water right;
       (B) an aboriginal claim; or
       (C) any other water right claim of an Indian tribe in a 
     judicial or administrative proceeding; or
       (2) limits the right of a party to the Agreement to 
     litigate any issue not resolved by the Agreement or this Act.
       (c) Admission Against Interest.--Nothing in this Act shall 
     be considered to be an admission against interest by a party 
     in any legal proceeding.
       (d) Duck Valley Reservation.--The Duck Valley Indian 
     Reservation established by the Executive order dated April 
     16, 1877, as adjusted pursuant to the Executive order dated 
     May 4, 1886, and Executive order numbered 1222 and dated July 
     1, 1910, for use and occupation by the Western Shoshones and 
     the Paddy Cap Band of Paiutes shall be--
       (1) considered to be the property of the Tribes; and
       (2) permanently held in trust by the United States for the 
     sole use and benefit of the Tribes.
       (e) Jurisdiction.--
       (1) Subject matter jurisdiction.--Nothing in the Agreement 
     or this Act restricts, enlarges, or otherwise determines the 
     subject matter jurisdiction of any Federal, State, or tribal 
     court.
       (2) Civil or regulatory jurisdiction.--Nothing in the 
     Agreement or this Act impairs or impedes the exercise of any 
     civil or regulatory authority of the United States, the 
     State, or the Tribes.
       (3) Consent to jurisdiction.--The United States consents to 
     jurisdiction in a proper forum for purposes of enforcing the 
     provisions of the Agreement.
       (4) Effect of subsection.--Nothing in this subsection 
     confers jurisdiction on any State court to--
       (A) enforce Federal environmental laws relating to the 
     duties of the United States under this Act; or
       (B) conduct judicial review of a Federal agency action in 
     accordance with this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Feingold):
  S. 463. A bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to 
clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, once again I am pleased to be joined by my 
good friend and colleague Senator Feingold from Wisconsin in 
introducing a bill to end the illegal practice of 527 groups spending 
soft money on ads and other activities to influence Federal elections.
  This bill is very simple. It would require that all 527s register as 
political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, 
including Federal limits on the contributions they receive, unless the 
money they raise and spend is only in connection with non-Federal 
candidate elections, State or local ballot initiatives, or the 
nomination or confirmation of individuals to non-elected offices.
  Additionally, this legislation would set new rules for Federal 
political committees that spend funds on voter mobilization efforts 
effecting both Federal and local races and, therefore, use both a 
Federal and a non-Federal account under Federal Election Commission 
(FEC) regulation. The new rules would prevent unlimited soft money from 
being channeled into Federal election activities by these Federal 
political committees.
  Under the new rules that would be established under this bill, at 
least half of the funds spent on these voter mobilization activities by 
Federal political committees would have to be hard money from their 
Federal account. More importantly, the funds raised for their non-
Federal account would have to come from individuals and would be 
limited to no more than $25,000 per year per donor. Corporations and 
labor unions could not contribute to these non-Federal accounts. To put 
it in simple terms, a George Soros could give $25,000 per year as 
opposed to $10 million to finance these activities.
  It is unfortunate that we even need to be here introducing this bill 
today. This legislation would not be necessary if the FEC would enforce 
existing law. As my colleagues know, a number of 527 groups raised and 
spent a substantial amount of soft money in a blatant effort to 
influence the outcome of the 2004 Presidential election. These 
activities are illegal under existing laws,

[[Page S1441]]

but, unfortunately, the FEC has failed to implement the regulations 
necessary to stop these illegal activities.
  According to an analysis by campaign finance scholar Tony Corrado, 
federally oriented 527s spent $423 million to affect the outcome of the 
2004 elections. The same analysis shows that ten donors gave at least 
$4 million each to 527s involved in the 2004 elections and two donors 
each contributed over $20 million. Let me be perfectly clear on one 
point here. Our proposal will NOT shut down 527s. It will simply 
require them to abide by the same Federal regulations every other 
Federal political committee must abide by in spending money to 
influence Federal elections.
  Opponents of campaign finance reform like to point out that the 
activities of these 527s serve as proof that the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act (BCRA) has failed in its stated purpose, which is to 
eliminate the corrupting influence of soft money in our political 
campaigns. Let me be perfectly clear on this. The 527 issue has nothing 
to do with BCRA, it has everything to do with the Federal Election 
Campaign Act of 1974 and the failure of the FEC to properly regulate 
the activities of these groups.
  The bill Senator Feingold and I are introducing today is designed to 
put an end to the abusive, illegal practices of these 527s. I urge my 
colleagues to support swift passage of this bill and put an end to this 
problem once and for all.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to be working once again 
with my partner in reform, the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator 
McCain, to introduce the 527 Reform Act.
  Our purpose is simple--to pass legislation that will do what the FEC 
could and should do under current law, but, once again, has failed to 
do. Current Federal election law requires these groups to register as 
political committees and to stop raising and spending soft money. But 
the FEC has failed to enforce the law, so we must act in the Congress. 
This bill will make it absolutely clear that the federal election laws 
apply to 527 organizations.
  We had to something similar with BCRA, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 
Act, which passed in 2002, closing the soft money loophole that the FEC 
created in the late '70s and expanded in the '90s. That struggle took 
seven years. We have now been seeking to bring 527s within the law for 
four.
  This bill will require all 527s to register as political committees 
unless they fall into a number of narrow categories. The exceptions are 
basically for groups that Congress exempted from disclosure 
requirements because they are so small or for groups that are involved 
exclusively in State election activity. Once a group registers as a 
political committee, certain activities, such as ads that mention only 
Federal candidates, will have to be paid for solely with hard money.
  Under current rules, the FEC permits Federal political committees to 
maintain a non-Federal account to pay a portion of the expenses of 
activities that affect both Federal and non-Federal elections. Our bill 
sets new allocation rules that will make sure that these allocable 
activities are paid for with at least 50 percent hard money.
  Finally, the bill makes an important change with respect to the non-
federal portion of the allocable activities. We put a limit of $25,000 
per year on the contributions that can be accepted for that non-federal 
account. This means no more million dollar soft money contributions to 
pay for get-out-the-vote efforts in the presidential campaign.
  Nothing in this bill will affect legitimate 501(c) advocacy groups. 
The bill only applies to groups that claim a tax exemption under 
section 527.
  Having laid out the central components of the bill, let me discuss 
how this bill has evolved, and the differences between this bill and 
the bill we introduced in 2005. In the last Congress, we made a great 
deal of progress working with the Senator from Mississippi, who at the 
time chaired the Rules Committee. Prior to taking the bill to a markup 
in the spring of 2005, Senator Lott worked with us to clarify the bill 
and address some of the concerns that had been raised about it. The 
bill we are introducing today is identical to the ``Chairman's Mark'' 
that Senator Lott brought before the Rules Committee last year.
  While the original bill exempted 527s engaged exclusively in state 
elections from the registration requirement, it denied the exemption to 
groups that carry out ``voter drive activities''--defined as get-out-
the vote, voter ID, or voter registration--during a federal election 
year. This made the exemption too narrow, so we looked for another way 
to ensure that state 527s that only work on behalf of non-Federal 
officeholders will not have to become Federal PACs.
  The Chairman's Mark, and this year's bill, completely exempt 
organizations of State and local candidates or officeholders. Groups 
such as the Democratic Governors Association, Republican Governors 
Association, or a state legislative caucus would be exempt, as long as 
their voter drive activities only mention state candidates or ballot 
issues. These groups do not qualify for the exemption, however, if they 
mention Federal candidates in their communications.
  Second, the bill provides a slightly narrower exemption for State 
PACs that are active only in State elections. The only additional 
requirements for these PACs to qualify for an exemption are that they 
can only be active in a single State, and they cannot have a candidate 
for Federal office or Federal officeholder controlling or participating 
in the organization or raising money for it.
  Finally, we made a number of changes to ensure that Federal PACs that 
allocate expenditures can use non-Federal money for expenditures 
designed only to assist State candidates even if they make an 
incidental reference to a Federal candidate or political party.
  The changes to the legislation that we made last year working with 
Senator Lott prior to the Rules Committee markup have been carried 
forward in the bill we introduce today. They improved and strengthened 
the bill. Unfortunately, other amendments were added during the Rules 
Committee consideration of the bill that we could not support. So the 
bill that we are introducing today is the same as the bill that went to 
markup in 2005, not the bill that was reported.
  In closing, let me remind my colleagues that the soft money loophole 
was first opened by FEC rulings in the late '70s. By the time we 
started work on BCRA, the problem had mushroomed and led to the 
scandals we saw in the 1996 campaign. When we passed BCRA, I said we 
would have to be vigilant to make sure that the FEC enforced the law 
and that similar loopholes did not develop. That is what we are trying 
to do here.
  I have no doubt that if we don't act on this 527 problem now, we will 
see more problems explode into scandals over the next few election 
cycles. In the 2004 cycle, Federal-oriented 527s spend $423 million. In 
fact, there were two donors who each contributed over $20 million. We 
cannot afford to wait until another presidential campaign season is in 
full bloom before addressing this problem. This FEC-ordained loophole 
threatens to further undermine the federal election laws. We must close 
it this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Ms. Collins, and Mr. Nelson of 
        Florida):
  S. 464. A bill to amend title XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act to improve the requirements regarding advance directives in order 
to ensure that an individual's health care decisions are complied with, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Ms. Collins Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 465. A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
Act and title III of the Public Health Service Act to improve access to 
information about individuals' health care options and legal rights for 
care near the end of life, to promote advance care planning and 
decisionmaking so that individuals' wishes are known should they become 
unable to speak for themselves, to engage health care providers in 
disseminating information about and assisting in the preparation of 
advance directives, which include living wills and durable powers of 
attorney for health care, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Finance.

[[Page S1442]]

                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. 
        Lugar):
  S. 466. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide for coverage of an end-of-life planning consultation as part of 
an initial preventive physical examination under the Medicare program; 
to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, death is by no means an easy subject 
to talk about; nonetheless, end-of-life care continues to be a 
controversial topic that must be addressed. Today, I am introducing 
three bills that I hope will go a long way to improve end-of-life care 
in this country. Senator Susan Collins and I are reintroducing our 
Advance Planning and Compassionate Care Act, comprehensive legislation 
that would ensure that patients' final wishes for end-of-life care are 
known, respected, and complied with. This legislation has been 
introduced in each Congress since the 105th Congress. I am hopeful that 
we will be able to move it this year.
  I am also introducing the Medicare End-of-Life Care Planning Act with 
Senators Lugar and Bill Nelson. This important bill is based on an 
amendment that I introduced during the Finance Committee's 
consideration of the Deficit Reduction Act in 2005. It would require 
physician consultation regarding advance directives during the initial 
``Welcome to Medicare'' physician visit. An end-of-life care 
consultation during a Medicare recipient's first contact with the 
program would emphasize the importance of advance planning and give him 
or her the tools necessary to understand advance directives, the 
Medicare hospice benefit, and other end-of-life care concerns. Having 
such a benefit in Medicare would undoubtedly improve patient care and 
quality at the end-of-life.
  The final bill that I would like to talk about today is the Advance 
Directives Improvement and Education Act, legislation that I am 
cosponsoring with Senators Bill Nelson and Richard Lugar. The Advance 
Directives Improvement and Education Act complements both of the bills 
I am introducing today. It includes my language on the ``Welcome to 
Medicare'' doctor's visit, which I believe is critical, but it also 
includes two other important provisions. It improves the policies for 
use and portability of advance directives across state lines, and it 
directs the Secretary of HHS to conduct a public education campaign on 
the importance of end-of-life planning.
  I am happy to be an author of each of these bills. As we have seen 
recently with the well-publicized case of Terri Shiavo, end-of-life 
decision making can be confusing and cause added anguish to an already 
sorrowful situation. The delicate nature of life and love make it very 
difficult to create strict rules governing end-of-life care, nor should 
we want to. In its present form, however, end-of-life planning and care 
for most Americans is perplexing, disjointed, and lacking an active 
dialogue. We can, and must, take action to make this process as easy as 
possible.
  It is not surprising that we face this problem. Health care 
professionals frequently use terms that are too technical or confusing 
for the average person. Patients who appear too sick to participate in 
the discussions may be excluded from determining their own destiny. And 
all too often the entire conversation never happens due to the 
discomfort of all parties involved. As a result, patients and families, 
suffer needlessly during these already difficult times. A report issued 
by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Care at the End of Life 
stated that, and I quote, ``suffering arises when the aggressive use of 
ineffectual or intrusive interventions serves to prolong the period of 
dying unnecessarily or to dishonor the dying person's wishes about 
care. Too often, dying people and their families are either not aware 
of these care options, not fully apprised of the probable benefits and 
burdens of these various options, or are the recipients of care that is 
inconsistent with their wishes as expressed in written or oral 
directives.''
  Despite these shortcomings, the evidence tells us that most people 
want to discuss advanced directives when they are healthy and they want 
their families involved in the process. According to the American 
Psychological Association, almost 60 percent of individuals 65 or older 
state that they want their family to be given choices about treatment 
should they become incapacitated rather than leaving the decision up to 
physicians. How can we allow these serious problems to persist when 
dealing with the lives of our family and friends?
  Death is hard to think about. Death is hard to talk about. And the 
final period of time leading up to our death is hard to plan. But we 
must encourage our family, our friends, and our loved ones to discuss 
this difficult topic in an open and effective manner in order to avoid 
any additional pain when a loved one passes away. We must also provide 
them the best tools to do so.
  The legislation I am introducing today accomplishes this objective by 
developing standards for end-of-life care, facilitating opportunities 
for patients to discuss end-of-life issues with a trained professional, 
and authorizing funds for demonstration projects on innovative 
approaches to end-of-life care.
  Death is a serious, personal, and complicated issue that is 
eventually relevant to each and every one of us. Americans deserve end-
of-life care that is effective in fulfilling individual wishes, 
avoiding unnecessary disputes, and, most importantly, providing quality 
end-of-life care. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join us in 
improving end-of-life care and reducing the amount of grief that 
inevitably comes with losing those who we hold dear.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of each of these bills be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bills was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 464

       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 ``Advance 
     Planning and Compassionate Care Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Development of standards to assess end-of-life care.
Sec. 3. Study and report by the Secretary of Health and Human Services 
              regarding the establishment and implementation of a 
              national uniform policy on advance directives.
Sec. 4. Improvement of policies related to the use of advance 
              directives.
Sec. 5. National information hotline for end-of-life decisionmaking and 
              hospice care.
Sec. 6. Demonstration project for innovative and new approaches to end-
              of-life care for Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP 
              beneficiaries.
Sec. 7. Establishment of End-of-Life Care Advisory Board.

     SEC. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS TO ASSESS END-OF-LIFE CARE.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, in consultation with the Administrator of the 
     Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Director of the 
     National Institutes of Health, the Administrator of the 
     Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, and the End-of-
     Life Care Advisory Board (established under section 7), shall 
     develop outcome standards and measures to--
       (1) evaluate the performance of health care programs and 
     projects that provide end-of-life care to individuals, 
     including the quality of the care provided by such programs 
     and projects; and
       (2) assess the access to, and utilization of, such programs 
     and projects, including differences in such access and 
     utilization in rural and urban areas and for minority 
     populations.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     outcome standards and measures developed under subsection 
     (a), together with recommendations for such legislation and 
     administrative actions as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.

     SEC. 3. STUDY AND REPORT BY THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 
                   SERVICES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND 
                   IMPLEMENTATION OF A NATIONAL UNIFORM POLICY ON 
                   ADVANCE DIRECTIVES.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct a thorough study of all matters relating to the 
     establishment and implementation of a national uniform policy 
     on advance directives for individuals receiving items and 
     services under titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.; 1396 et seq.).
       (2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services under paragraph (1) shall 
     include issues concerning--

[[Page S1443]]

       (A) family satisfaction that a patient's wishes, as stated 
     in the patient's advance directive, were carried out;
       (B) the portability of advance directives, including cases 
     involving the transfer of an individual from 1 health care 
     setting to another;
       (C) immunity from civil liability and criminal 
     responsibility for health care providers that follow the 
     instructions in an individual's advance directive that was 
     validly executed in, and consistent with the laws of, the 
     State in which it was executed;
       (D) conditions under which an advance directive is 
     operative;
       (E) revocation of an advance directive by an individual;
       (F) the criteria used by States for determining that an 
     individual has a terminal condition;
       (G) surrogate decisionmaking regarding end-of-life care;
       (H) the provision of adequate palliative care (as defined 
     in paragraph (3)), including pain management; and
       (I) adequate and timely referrals to hospice care programs.
       (3) Palliative care.--For purposes of paragraph (2)(H), the 
     term ``palliative care'' means interdisciplinary care for 
     individuals with a life-threatening illness or injury 
     relating to pain and symptom management and psychological, 
     social, and spiritual needs and that seeks to improve the 
     quality of life for the individual and the individual's 
     family.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under subsection (a), together with recommendations 
     for such legislation and administrative actions as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (c) Consultation.--In conducting the study and developing 
     the report under this section, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall consult with the End-of-Life Care 
     Advisory Board (established under section 7), the Uniform Law 
     Commissioners, and other interested parties.

     SEC. 4. IMPROVEMENT OF POLICIES RELATED TO THE USE OF ADVANCE 
                   DIRECTIVES.

       (a) Medicare.--Section 1866(f) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and if presented by 
     the individual, to include the content of such advance 
     directive in a prominent part of such record'' before the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to 
     discuss issues relating to the information provided to that 
     individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately 
     trained professional.'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a written'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) An advance directive validly executed outside of 
     the State in which such advance directive is presented by an 
     adult individual to a provider of services, a Medicare 
     Advantage organization, or a prepaid or eligible organization 
     shall be given the same effect by that provider or 
     organization as an advance directive validly executed under 
     the law of the State in which it is presented would be given 
     effect.
       ``(B)(i) The definition of an advanced directive shall also 
     include actual knowledge of instructions made while an 
     individual was able to express the wishes of such individual 
     with regard to health care.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term `actual 
     knowledge' means the possession of information of an 
     individual's wishes communicated to the health care provider 
     orally or in writing by the individual, the individual's 
     medical power of attorney representative, the individual's 
     health care surrogate, or other individuals resulting in the 
     health care provider's personal cognizance of these wishes. 
     Other forms of imputed knowledge are not actual knowledge.
       ``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any 
     State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such 
     provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not 
     preempt any State law that provides for greater portability, 
     more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in 
     determining a patient's wishes.''.
       (b) Medicaid.--Section 1902(w) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a(w)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B)--
       (i) by striking ``in the individual's medical record'' and 
     inserting ``in a prominent part of the individual's current 
     medical record''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``and if presented by the individual, to 
     include the content of such advance directive in a prominent 
     part of such record'' before the semicolon at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (C) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to 
     discuss issues relating to the information provided to that 
     individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately 
     trained professional.'';
       (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ``a written'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(6)(A) An advance directive validly executed outside of 
     the State in which such advance directive is presented by an 
     adult individual to a provider or organization shall be given 
     the same effect by that provider or organization as an 
     advance directive validly executed under the law of the State 
     in which it is presented would be given effect.
       ``(B)(i) The definition of an advanced directive shall also 
     include actual knowledge of instructions made while an 
     individual was able to express the wishes of such individual 
     with regard to health care.
       ``(ii) For purposes of clause (i), the term `actual 
     knowledge' means the possession of information of an 
     individual's wishes communicated to the health care provider 
     orally or in writing by the individual, the individual's 
     medical power of attorney representative, the individual's 
     health care surrogate, or other individuals resulting in the 
     health care provider's personal cognizance of these wishes. 
     Other forms of imputed knowledge are not actual knowledge.
       ``(C) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any 
     State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such 
     provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not 
     preempt any State law that provides for greater portability, 
     more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in 
     determining a patient's wishes.''.
       (c) Study and Report Regarding Implementation.--
       (1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall conduct a study regarding the implementation of the 
     amendments made by subsections (a) and (b).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1), together with recommendations 
     for such legislation and administrative actions as the 
     Secretary considers appropriate.
       (d) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the amendments 
     made by subsections (a) and (b) shall apply to provider 
     agreements and contracts entered into, renewed, or extended 
     under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 
     et seq.), and to State plans under title XIX of such Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), on or after such date as the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services specifies, but in no case may 
     such date be later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       (2) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
     In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) which the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services determines requires State 
     legislation in order for the plan to meet the additional 
     requirements imposed by the amendments made by subsection 
     (b), the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to 
     comply with the requirements of such title solely on the 
     basis of its failure to meet these additional requirements 
     before the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning 
     after the close of the first regular session of the State 
     legislature that begins after the date of enactment of this 
     Act. For purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a 
     State that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the 
     session is considered to be a separate regular session of the 
     State legislature.

     SEC. 5. NATIONAL INFORMATION HOTLINE FOR END-OF-LIFE 
                   DECISIONMAKING AND HOSPICE CARE.

       The Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through 
     the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services, shall operate directly, or by grant, contract, or 
     interagency agreement, out of funds otherwise appropriated to 
     the Secretary, a clearinghouse and a 24-hour toll-free 
     telephone hotline in order to provide consumer information 
     about advance directives (as defined in section 1866(f)(3) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)(3)), as amended 
     by section 4(a)), end-of-life decisionmaking, and available 
     end-of-life and hospice care services. In carrying out the 
     preceding sentence, the Administrator may designate an 
     existing clearinghouse and 24-hour toll-free telephone 
     hotline or, if no such entity is appropriate, may establish a 
     new clearinghouse and a 24-hour toll-free telephone hotline.

     SEC. 6. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR INNOVATIVE AND NEW 
                   APPROACHES TO END-OF-LIFE CARE FOR MEDICARE, 
                   MEDICAID, AND SCHIP BENEFICIARIES.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 
     Services, shall conduct a demonstration project under which 
     the Secretary contracts with entities operating programs in 
     order to develop new and innovative approaches to providing 
     end-of-life care to Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid 
     beneficiaries, and SCHIP beneficiaries.
       (2) Application.--Any entity seeking to participate in the 
     demonstration project shall submit to the Secretary an 
     application in such form and manner as the Secretary may 
     require.
       (3) Duration.--The authority of the Secretary to conduct 
     the demonstration project shall terminate at the end of the 
     5-year period beginning on the date the Secretary implements 
     the demonstration project.

[[Page S1444]]

       (b) Selection Criteria.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), in 
     selecting entities to participate in the demonstration 
     project, the Secretary shall select entities that will allow 
     for programs to be conducted in a variety of States, in an 
     array of care settings, and that reflect--
       (A) a balance between urban and rural settings;
       (B) cultural diversity; and
       (C) various modes of medical care and insurance, such as 
     fee-for-service, preferred provider organizations, health 
     maintenance organizations, hospice care, home care services, 
     long-term care, pediatric care, and integrated delivery 
     systems.
       (2) Preferences.--The Secretary shall give preference to 
     entities operating programs that--
       (A) will serve Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid 
     beneficiaries, or SCHIP beneficiaries who are dying of 
     illnesses that are most prevalent under the Medicare program, 
     the Medicaid program, or SCHIP, respectively; and
       (B) appear capable of sustained service and broad 
     replication at a reasonable cost within commonly available 
     organizational structures.
       (3) Selection of program that provides pediatric end-of-
     life care.--The Secretary shall ensure that at least 1 of the 
     entities selected to participate in the demonstration project 
     operates a program that provides pediatric end-of-life care.
       (c) Evaluation of Programs.--
       (1) In general.--Each program operated by an entity under 
     the demonstration project shall be evaluated at such regular 
     intervals as the Secretary determines are appropriate.
       (2) Use of private entities to conduct evaluations.--The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the End-of-Life Care Advisory 
     Board (established under section 7), shall contract with 1 or 
     more private entities to coordinate and conduct the 
     evaluations under paragraph (1). Such a contract may not be 
     awarded to an entity selected to participate in the 
     demonstration project.
       (3) Requirements for evaluations.--
       (A) Use of outcome measures and standards.--In coordinating 
     and conducting an evaluation of a program conducted under the 
     demonstration project, an entity shall use the outcome 
     standards and measures required to be developed under section 
     2 as soon as those standards and measures are available.
       (B) Elements of evaluation.--In addition to the use of the 
     outcome standards and measures under subparagraph (A), an 
     evaluation of a program conducted under the demonstration 
     project shall include the following:
       (i) A comparison of the quality of care provided by, and of 
     the outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid 
     beneficiaries, and SCHIP beneficiaries, and the families of 
     such beneficiaries enrolled in, the program being evaluated 
     to the quality of care and outcomes for such individuals that 
     would have resulted if care had been provided under existing 
     delivery systems.
       (ii) An analysis of how ongoing measures of quality and 
     accountability for improvement and excellence could be 
     incorporated into the program being evaluated.
       (iii) A comparison of the costs of the care provided to 
     Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid beneficiaries, and SCHIP 
     beneficiaries under the program being evaluated to the costs 
     of such care that would have been incurred under the Medicare 
     program, the Medicaid program, and SCHIP if such program had 
     not been conducted.
       (iv) An analysis of whether the program being evaluated 
     implements practices or procedures that result in improved 
     patient outcomes, resource utilization, or both.
       (v) An analysis of--

       (I) the population served by the program being evaluated; 
     and
       (II) how accurately that population reflects the total 
     number of Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid beneficiaries, and 
     SCHIP beneficiaries residing in the area who are in need of 
     services offered by such program.

       (vi) An analysis of the eligibility requirements and 
     enrollment procedures for the program being evaluated.
       (vii) An analysis of the services provided to beneficiaries 
     enrolled in the program being evaluated and the utilization 
     rates for such services.
       (viii) An analysis of the structure for the provision of 
     specific services under the program being evaluated.
       (ix) An analysis of the costs of providing specific 
     services under the program being evaluated.
       (x) An analysis of any procedures for offering Medicare 
     beneficiaries, Medicaid beneficiaries, and SCHIP 
     beneficiaries enrolled in the program being evaluated a 
     choice of services and how the program responds to the 
     preferences of such beneficiaries.
       (xi) An analysis of the quality of care provided to, and of 
     the outcomes for, Medicare beneficiaries, Medicaid 
     beneficiaries, and SCHIP beneficiaries, and the families of 
     such beneficiaries, that are enrolled in the program being 
     evaluated.
       (xii) An analysis of any ethical, cultural, or legal 
     concerns--

       (I) regarding the program being evaluated; and
       (II) with the replication of such program in other 
     settings.

       (xiii) An analysis of any changes to regulations or of any 
     additional funding that would result in more efficient 
     procedures or improved outcomes under the program being 
     evaluated.
       (d) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive compliance 
     with any of the requirements of titles XI, XVIII, XIX, and 
     XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.; 1395 
     et seq.; 1396 et seq.; 1397aa et seq.) which, if applied, 
     would prevent the demonstration project carried out under 
     this section from effectively achieving the purpose of such 
     project.
       (e) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Annual reports by secretary.--
       (A) In general.--Beginning 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary 
     shall submit to Congress a report on the demonstration 
     project and on the quality of end-of-life care under the 
     Medicare program, the Medicaid program, and SCHIP, together 
     with recommendations for such legislation and administrative 
     actions as the Secretary considers appropriate.
       (B) Summary of recent studies.--A report submitted under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include a summary of any recent 
     studies and advice from experts in the health care field 
     regarding the ethical, cultural, and legal issues that may 
     arise when attempting to improve the health care system to 
     meet the needs of individuals with serious and eventually 
     terminal conditions.
       (C) Continuation or replication of demonstration 
     projects.--The first report submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     after the 3-year anniversary of the date the Secretary 
     implements the demonstration project shall include 
     recommendations regarding whether such demonstration project 
     should be continued beyond the period described in subsection 
     (a)(3) and whether broad replication of any of the programs 
     conducted under the demonstration project should be 
     initiated.
       (2) Report by end-of-life care advisory board on 
     demonstration project.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     conclusion of the demonstration project, the End-of-Life 
     Advisory Board shall submit a report to the Secretary and 
     Congress on such project.
       (B) Contents.--The report submitted under subparagraph (A) 
     shall contain--
       (i) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the demonstration 
     project; and
       (ii) recommendations for such legislation and 
     administrative actions as the Board considers appropriate.
       (f) Funding.--There are appropriated such sums as are 
     necessary for conducting the demonstration project and for 
     preparing and submitting the reports required under 
     subsection (e)(1).
       (g) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration 
     project'' means the demonstration project conducted under 
     this section.
       (2) Medicaid beneficiaries.--The term ``Medicaid 
     beneficiaries'' means individuals who are enrolled in the 
     State Medicaid program.
       (3) Medicaid program.--The term ``Medicaid program'' means 
     the health care program under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (4) Medicare beneficiaries.--The term ``Medicare 
     beneficiaries'' means individuals who are entitled to, or 
     enrolled for, benefits under part A or enrolled for benefits 
     under part B of the Medicare program.
       (5) Medicare program.--The term ``Medicare program'' means 
     the health care program under title XVIII of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
       (6) SCHIP.--The term ``SCHIP'' means the State children's 
     health insurance program under title XXI of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.).
       (7) SCHIP beneficiary.--The term ``SCHIP beneficiary'' 
     means an individual who is enrolled in SCHIP.
       (8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services.

     SEC. 7. ESTABLISHMENT OF END-OF-LIFE CARE ADVISORY BOARD.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Health and Human Services an End-of-Life Care 
     Advisory Board (in this section referred to as the 
     ``Board'').
       (b) Structure and Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall be composed of 15 members 
     who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'').
       (2) Required representation.--The Secretary shall ensure 
     that the following groups, organizations, and associations 
     are represented in the membership of the Board:
       (A) An end-of-life consumer advocacy organization.
       (B) A senior citizen advocacy organization.
       (C) A physician-based hospice or palliative care 
     organization.
       (D) A nurse-based hospice or palliative care organization.
       (E) A hospice or palliative care provider organization.
       (F) A hospice or palliative care representative that serves 
     the veterans population.
       (G) A physician-based medical association.
       (H) A physician-based pediatric medical association.
       (I) A home health-based nurses association.
       (J) A hospital-based or health system-based palliative care 
     group.
       (K) A children-based or family-based hospice resource 
     group.
       (L) A cancer pain management resource group.

[[Page S1445]]

       (M) A cancer research and policy advocacy group.
       (N) An end-of-life care policy advocacy group.
       (O) An interdisciplinary end-of-life care academic 
     institution.
       (3) Ethnic diversity requirement.--The Secretary shall 
     ensure that the members of the Board appointed under 
     paragraph (1) represent the ethnic diversity of the United 
     States.
       (4) Prohibition.--No individual who is a Federal officer or 
     employee may serve as a member of the Board.
       (5) Terms of appointment.--Each member of the Board shall 
     serve for a term determined appropriate by the Secretary.
       (6) Chairperson.--The Secretary shall designate a member of 
     the Board as chairperson.
       (c) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson but not less often than every 3 months.
       (d) Duties.--
       (1) In general.--The Board shall advise the Secretary on 
     all matters related to the furnishing of end-of-life care to 
     individuals.
       (2) Specific duties.--The specific duties of the Board are 
     as follows:
       (A) Consulting.--The Board shall consult with the Secretary 
     regarding--
       (i) the development of the outcome standards and measures 
     under section 2;
       (ii) conducting the study and submitting the report under 
     section 3; and
       (iii) the selection of private entities to conduct 
     evaluations pursuant to section 6(c)(2).
       (B) Report on demonstration project.--The Board shall 
     submit the report required under section 6(e)(2).
       (e) Members To Serve Without Compensation.--
       (1) In general.--All members of the Board shall serve on 
     the Board without compensation for such service.
       (2) Travel expenses.--The members of the Board shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Board.
       (f) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The chairperson of the Board may, without 
     regard to the civil service laws and regulations, appoint and 
     terminate an executive director and such other additional 
     personnel as may be necessary to enable the Board to perform 
     its duties. The employment of an executive director shall be 
     subject to confirmation by the Board.
       (2) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Board may fix the 
     compensation of the executive director and other personnel 
     without regard to chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 
     of title 5, United States Code, relating to classification of 
     positions and General Schedule pay rates, except that the 
     rate of pay for the executive director and other personnel 
     may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (3) Personnel as federal employees.--
       (A) In general.--The executive director and any personnel 
     of the Board who are employees shall be employees under 
     section 2105 of title 5, United States Code, for purposes of 
     chapters 63, 81, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, and 90 of that title.
       (B) Members of board.--Subparagraph (A) shall not be 
     construed to apply to members of the Board.
       (g) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Board without additional 
     reimbursement (other than the employee's regular 
     compensation), and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (h) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The chairperson of the Board may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (i) Federal Advisory Committee Act.--Section 14 of the 
     Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not 
     apply to the Board.
       (j) Termination.--The Board shall terminate 90 days after 
     the date on which the Board submits the report under section 
     6(e)(2).
       (k) Funding.--Funding for the operation of the Board shall 
     be from amounts otherwise appropriated to the Department of 
     Health and Human Services.

                                 S. 465

       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 ``Advance Directives 
     Improvement and Education Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. ADVANCE DIRECTIVES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Every year 2,500,000 people die in the United States. 
     Eighty percent of those people die in institutions such as 
     hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities. Chronic 
     illnesses, such as cancer and heart disease, account for 2 
     out of every 3 deaths.
       (2) In 1997, the Supreme Court of the United States, in its 
     decisions in Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, 
     reaffirmed the constitutional right of competent adults to 
     refuse unwanted medical treatment. In those cases, the Court 
     stressed the use of advance directives as a means of 
     safeguarding that right should those adults become incapable 
     of deciding for themselves.
       (3) A survey published in 2005 estimated that the overall 
     prevalence of advance directives is 29 percent of the general 
     population, despite the passage of the Patient Self-
     Determination Act in 1990, which requires that health care 
     providers tell patients about advance directives.
       (4) Competent adults should complete advance care plans 
     stipulating their health care decisions in the event that 
     they become unable to speak for themselves. Through the 
     execution of advance directives, including living wills and 
     durable powers of attorney for health care according to the 
     laws of the State in which they reside, individuals can 
     protect their right to express their wishes and have them 
     respected.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this section are to improve 
     access to information about individuals' health care options 
     and legal rights for care near the end of life, to promote 
     advance care planning and decisionmaking so that individuals' 
     wishes are known should they become unable to speak for 
     themselves, to engage health care providers in disseminating 
     information about and assisting in the preparation of advance 
     directives, which include living wills and durable powers of 
     attorney for health care, and for other purposes.
       (c) Medicare Coverage of End-of-Life Planning and 
     Consultations as Part of Initial Preventive Physical 
     Examination.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1861(ww) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ww)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2),'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2) and an end-of-life planning 
     consultation (as defined in paragraph (3)),''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `end-of-life 
     planning consultation' means a consultation between the 
     physician and an individual regarding--
       ``(A) the importance of preparing advance directives in 
     case an injury or illness causes the individual to be unable 
     to make health care decisions;
       ``(B) the situations in which an advance directive is 
     likely to be relied upon;
       ``(C) the reasons that the development of a comprehensive 
     end-of-life plan is beneficial and the reasons that such a 
     plan should be updated periodically as the health of the 
     individual changes;
       ``(D) the identification of resources that an individual 
     may use to determine the requirements of the State in which 
     such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that 
     individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to 
     communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding 
     the designation of a surrogate decision maker (health care 
     proxy); and
       ``(E) whether or not the physician is willing to follow the 
     individual's wishes as expressed in an advance directive.''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply to initial preventive physical examinations 
     provided on or after January 1, 2008.
       (d) Improvement of Policies Related to the Use and 
     Portability of Advance Directives.--
       (1) Medicare.--Section 1866(f) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(f)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and if presented by 
     the individual (or on behalf of the individual), to include 
     the content of such advance directive in a prominent part of 
     such record'' before the semicolon at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (iii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to 
     discuss issues relating to the information provided to that 
     individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately 
     trained professional.'';
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``a written'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5)(A) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (1), 
     a provider of services, Medicare Advantage organization, or 
     prepaid or eligible organization (as the case may be) shall 
     give effect to an advance directive executed outside the 
     State in which such directive is presented, even one that 
     does not appear to meet the formalities of execution, form, 
     or language required by the State in which it is presented to 
     the same extent as such provider or organization would give 
     effect to an advance directive that meets such requirements, 
     except that a provider or organization may decline to honor 
     such a directive if the provider or organization can 
     reasonably demonstrate that it is not an authentic expression 
     of the individual's wishes concerning his or her health care. 
     Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize the 
     administration of medical treatment otherwise prohibited by 
     the laws of the State in which the directive is presented.
       ``(B) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any 
     State law to the extent such

[[Page S1446]]

     law is inconsistent with such provisions. The provisions of 
     this paragraph shall not preempt any State law that provides 
     for greater portability, more deference to a patient's 
     wishes, or more latitude in determining a patient's 
     wishes.''.
       (2) Medicaid.--Section 1902(w) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396a(w)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B)--

       (I) by striking ``in the individual's medical record'' and 
     inserting ``in a prominent part of the individual's current 
     medical record''; and
       (II) by inserting ``and if presented by the individual (or 
     on behalf of the individual), to include the content of such 
     advance directive in a prominent part of such record'' before 
     the semicolon at the end;

       (ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (iii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) to provide each individual with the opportunity to 
     discuss issues relating to the information provided to that 
     individual pursuant to subparagraph (A) with an appropriately 
     trained professional.'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking ``a written'' and 
     inserting ``an''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following paragraph:
       ``(6)(A) In addition to the requirements of paragraph (1), 
     a provider or organization (as the case may be) shall give 
     effect to an advance directive executed outside the State in 
     which such directive is presented, even one that does not 
     appear to meet the formalities of execution, form, or 
     language required by the State in which it is presented to 
     the same extent as such provider or organization would give 
     effect to an advance directive that meets such requirements, 
     except that a provider or organization may decline to honor 
     such a directive if the provider or organization can 
     reasonably demonstrate that it is not an authentic expression 
     of the individual's wishes concerning his or her health care. 
     Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to authorize the 
     administration of medical treatment otherwise prohibited by 
     the laws of the State in which the directive is presented.
       ``(B) The provisions of this paragraph shall preempt any 
     State law to the extent such law is inconsistent with such 
     provisions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not 
     preempt any State law that provides for greater portability, 
     more deference to a patient's wishes, or more latitude in 
     determining a patient's wishes.''.
       (3) Effective dates.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     amendments made by paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply to 
     provider agreements and contracts entered into, renewed, or 
     extended under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395 et seq.), and to State plans under title XIX of 
     such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), on or after such date as 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services specifies, but in 
     no case may such date be later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (B) Extension of effective date for state law amendment.--
     In the case of a State plan under title XIX of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) which the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services determines requires State 
     legislation in order for the plan to meet the additional 
     requirements imposed by the amendments made by paragraph (2), 
     the State plan shall not be regarded as failing to comply 
     with the requirements of such title solely on the basis of 
     its failure to meet these additional requirements before the 
     first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the 
     close of the first regular session of the State legislature 
     that begins after the date of enactment of this Act. For 
     purposes of the previous sentence, in the case of a State 
     that has a 2-year legislative session, each year of the 
     session is considered to be a separate regular session of the 
     State legislature.
       (e) Increasing Awareness of the Importance of End-of-Life 
     Planning.--Title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 241 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new part:

``PART R--PROGRAMS TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVE PLANNING 
                                 ISSUES

     ``SEC. 399Z-1. ADVANCE DIRECTIVE EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS AND 
                   INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSES.

       ``(a) Advance Directive Education Campaign.--The Secretary 
     shall, directly or through grants awarded under subsection 
     (c), conduct a national public education campaign--
       ``(1) to raise public awareness of the importance of 
     planning for care near the end of life;
       ``(2) to improve the public's understanding of the various 
     situations in which individuals may find themselves if they 
     become unable to express their health care wishes;
       ``(3) to explain the need for readily available legal 
     documents that express an individual's wishes, through 
     advance directives (including living wills, comfort care 
     orders, and durable powers of attorney for health care); and
       ``(4) to educate the public about the availability of 
     hospice care and palliative care.
       ``(b) Information Clearinghouse.--The Secretary, directly 
     or through grants awarded under subsection (c), shall provide 
     for the establishment of a national, toll-free, information 
     clearinghouse as well as clearinghouses that the public may 
     access to find out about State-specific information regarding 
     advance directive and end-of-life decisions.
       ``(c) Grants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall use at least 60 
     percent of the funds appropriated under subsection (d) for 
     the purpose of awarding grants to public or nonprofit private 
     entities (including States or political subdivisions of a 
     State), or a consortium of any of such entities, for the 
     purpose of conducting education campaigns under subsection 
     (a) and establishing information clearinghouses under 
     subsection (b).
       ``(2) Period.--Any grant awarded under paragraph (1) shall 
     be for a period of 3 years.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $25,000,000.''.
       (f) GAO Study and Report on Establishment of National 
     Advance Directive Registry.--
       (1) Study.--The Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall conduct a study on the feasibility of a national 
     registry for advance directives, taking into consideration 
     the constraints created by the privacy provisions enacted as 
     a result of the Health Insurance Portability and 
     Accountability Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-191).
       (2) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit to Congress a report on the study 
     conducted under paragraph (1) together with recommendations 
     for such legislation and administrative action as the 
     Comptroller General of the United States determines to be 
     appropriate.
       (g) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsections (c) 
     and (d), this section and the amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleagues and cosponsors Senators Jay Rockefeller and Richard Lugar as 
we introduce the Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 
2007.
  The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2007 has a 
simple purpose: to encourage all adults in America, especially those 65 
and older, to think about, talk about and write down their wishes for 
medical care near the end of life should they become unable to make 
decisions for themselves. Advance directives, which include a living 
will stating the individual's preferences for care, and a power of 
attorney for health care, are critical documents that each of us should 
have. The goal is clear, but reaching it requires that we educate the 
public about the importance of advance directives, offer opportunities 
for discussion of the issues, and reinforce the requirement that health 
care providers honor patients' wishes. This bill is designed to do just 
that.
  The Advance Directives Improvement and Education Act of 2007 would 
encourage new Medicare beneficiaries to prepare advance directives by 
including a physician consultation on advance directives in each 
``Welcome to Medicare'' physical exam. This initial consultation would 
cover the importance of preparing advance directives, when these 
documents are most likely to be used, and where to find additional 
resources and information. The conversation will also enable physicians 
to learn about their patients' wishes, fears, religious beliefs, and 
life experiences that might influence their medical care wishes. These 
are important aspects of a physician-patient relationship that are too 
often unaddressed.
  Another part of our bill would provide funds for the Department of 
Health and Human Services, HHS, to conduct a public education campaign 
to raise awareness of the importance of planning for care near the end 
of life. This campaign would explain what advance directives are, where 
they are available, what questions need to be asked and answered, and 
what to do with the executed documents. HHS, directly or through 
grants, would also establish an information clearinghouse where 
consumers could receive State-specific information and consumer-
friendly documents and publications.
  The bill also contains language that would make all advance 
directives ``portable,'' that is, useful from one State to another. If 
an out-of-State directive is presented, it will be presumed valid 
unless the health care provider can reasonably demonstrate that it is 
not an authentic expression of the individual's wishes concerning his 
or her health care.
  We all know about the tragic situation that occurred in Florida with 
Terri Schiavo and her family. She was

[[Page S1447]]

a young woman who was the subject of a debate about her treatment 
between her husband and her parents, a debate that was a court case and 
a legislative quagmire. Most experts agree that if she had an advance 
directive that made her wishes clear and named a health care proxy, 
there would have been no question as to who could decide the course of 
her care.
  One of the great legacies of Terri Schiavo's life will be that she 
began a national dialogue about end-of-life care and got people 
discussing living wills. Regardless of our views on the ethical, legal 
and constitutional issues surrounding her case, we all can agree that 
more people now than ever know the importance of having end-of-life 
discussions with their family, doctor, clergy or attorney. This bill 
would build upon this national dialogue and encourage more Americans to 
learn about and fill out advance directives.
  This body is a legislative institution, not a medical one. We cannot 
legislate good medical care or compassion. What we can do, what I hope 
we will do, is to enact this bill so that the American public can 
participate in improving end-of-life care. If we can do that, we will 
have done a great deal.

                                 S. 466

       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 ``Medicare End-of-Life Care 
     Planning Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. MEDICARE COVERAGE OF AN END-OF-LIFE PLANNING 
                   CONSULTATION AS PART OF AN INITIAL PREVENTIVE 
                   PHYSICAL EXAMINATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 1861(ww) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ww)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``paragraph (2),'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2) and an end-of-life planning 
     consultation (as defined in paragraph (3)),''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `end-of-life 
     planning consultation' means a consultation between the 
     physician and an individual regarding--
       ``(A) the importance of preparing advance directives in 
     case an injury or illness causes the individual to be unable 
     to make health care decisions;
       ``(B) the situations in which an advance directive is 
     likely to be relied upon;
       ``(C) the reasons why the development of a comprehensive 
     end-of-life plan is beneficial and the reasons why such a 
     plan should be updated periodically as the health of the 
     individual changes;
       ``(D) the identification of resources that an individual 
     may use to determine the requirements of the State in which 
     such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that 
     individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to 
     communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding 
     the designation of a surrogate decision maker (health care 
     proxy); and
       ``(E) whether or not the physician is willing to follow the 
     individual's wishes as expressed in an advance directive.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to initial preventive physical examinations 
     provided on or after January 1, 2008.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Bingaman, 
        Mr. Durbin, and Mr. Harkin):
  S. 467. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to expand the 
clinical trials drug data bank; to the Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Mikulski, and Mr. 
        Bingaman):
  S. 468. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with 
respect to drug safety, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Fair Access to 
Clinical Trials (FACT) Act. I want to begin by thanking Senators 
Grassley, Wyden, Bingaman, Durbin, and Harkin for joining me in 
introducing this legislation. I also would like to recognize the 
leadership of Senator Johnson who was involved in the crafting of this 
legislation from the beginning and who has been a long-standing 
supporter of the FACT Act.
  Our bill will create an electronic databank for clinical trials of 
drugs, biological products, and medical devices. Such a databank will 
ensure that physicians, researchers, the general public, and patients 
seeking to enroll in clinical trials have access to basic information 
about those trials. It will require manufacturers and other researchers 
to reveal the results of clinical trials so that clinically important 
information will be available to all Americans, and physicians will 
have all the information necessary to make appropriate treatment 
decisions for their patients.
  Events of the past few years have made it clear that such a databank 
is needed. For example, serious questions were raised about the 
effectiveness and safety of antidepressants when used in children and 
youth. It has now become clear that the existing data indicates that 
these drugs may very well put children at risk. However, because the 
data from antidepressant clinical trials was not publicly available, it 
took years for this risk to be realized. In the meantime, millions of 
children have been prescribed antidepressants by well-meaning 
physicians. While these drugs undoubtedly helped many of these 
children, they also led to greater suffering for others.
  The news is similarly disturbing for a popular class of painkillers 
known as Cox-2 inhibitors. These medicines, taken by millions of 
Americans, have been associated with an increased risk of 
cardiovascular adverse events, such as heart attack and stroke. It has 
been suggested that one of these medicines, which has since been pulled 
from the market, may have been responsible for tens of thousands of 
deaths.
  Most recently, a drug manufacturer acknowledged that it did not 
inform the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the public about the 
results of a 67,000 person study it conducted of an FDA-approved drug 
used commonly during heart surgery to reduce the need for a 
transfusion. The study revealed the drug may increase patients' risk of 
death, serious kidney damage, congestive heart failure, and stroke.
  Unfortunately, these are just a few examples of stories that have 
become all too common. It has been suggested that negative data might 
actually have been suppressed; and if this is discovered to be the 
case, those responsible should be dealt with harshly. However, because 
of what is known as ``publication bias,'' the information available to 
the public and physicians can be misleading even without nefarious 
motives. The simple fact is that studies with a positive result are far 
more likely to be published, and thus publicly available, than a study 
with a negative result. Physicians and patients hear the good news. 
Rarely do they hear the bad news. In the end, the imbalance of 
available information hurts patients.
  Our bill would correct this imbalance in information, and prevent 
manufacturers from suppressing negative data. It would do so by 
creating a two-part databank, consisting of an expansion of 
clinicaltrials.gov--an existing registry that is operated by the 
National Library of Medicine (NLM)--and a new database for clinical 
trial results.
  Under the FACT Act, the registry would continue to operate as a 
resource for patients seeking to enroll in clinical trials for drugs 
and biological products intended to treat serious or life-threatening 
conditions--and for the first time, it would also include medical 
device trials. The new results database would include all trials 
(except for preliminary safety trials), and would require the 
submission of clinical trial results data.
  Our legislation would enforce the requirement to submit information 
to the databank in two ways. First, by requiring registration as a 
condition of Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, no trial could 
begin without submitting preliminary information to the registry and 
database. This information would include the purpose of the trial, the 
estimated date of trial completion, as well as all of the information 
necessary to help patients to enroll in the trial.
  Once the trial is completed, the researcher or manufacturer is 
required to submit the results to the database. If they refuse to do 
so, they are subject to monetary penalties or, in the case of 
federally-funded research, a restriction on future federal funding. It 
is my belief that these enforcement mechanisms will ensure broad 
compliance. However, in the rare case where a manufacturer does not 
comply, this legislation also gives the FDA the authority to publicize 
the required information.
  Let me also say that any time you are collecting large amounts of 
data and making it public, protecting patient privacy and 
confidentiality is

[[Page S1448]]

paramount. Our legislation would in no way threaten patient privacy. 
The simple fact is that under this bill, no individually-identifiable 
information would be available to the public.
  I believe that the establishment of a clinical trials databank is 
absolutely necessary for the health and well-being of the American 
public. But I would also like to highlight two other benefits that such 
a databank will have. First, it has the potential to reduce health care 
costs. Studies have shown that publication bias also leads to a bias 
toward new and more expensive treatment options. A databank could help 
make it clear that in some cases less expensive treatments are just as 
effective for patients.
  In addition, a databank will ensure that the sacrifice made by 
patients who enroll in clinical trials is not squandered. We owe it to 
patients to make sure that their participation in a trial will benefit 
other individuals suffering from the same illness or condition by 
making the results of the trial public, no matter the outcome of the 
trial.

  The problems associated with publication bias have recently drawn 
more attention from the medical community, and there is broad consensus 
that a clinical trials registry is one of the best ways to address the 
issue. Accordingly, the American Medical Association (AMA) has 
recommended creating such a databank. Additionally, the major medical 
journals have established a policy that they will only publish the 
results of trials that were registered in a public database before the 
trial began. Our legislation meets all of the minimum criteria for a 
trial registry set out by the International Committee of Medical 
Journal Editors. In fact, our bill closely follows recommendations 
issued by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its recent report on drug 
safety.
  To its credit, the pharmaceutical industry has also acknowledged the 
problem, and has created a database where manufacturers can voluntarily 
submit clinical trials data. I applaud this step. However, if our 
objective is to provide the public with a complete and consistent 
supply of information, a voluntary database is unlikely to achieve that 
goal. Some companies will provide information, but others may decide 
not to participate. We need a clinical trials framework that is not 
just fair to all companies, but provides patients with the peace of 
mind that they will receive complete information about the medicines 
they rely on.
  The American drug industry is an extraordinary success story. As a 
result of the innovations that this industry has spawned, millions of 
lives have been improved and saved in our country and around the globe. 
Due to the importance of these medicines to our health and well-being, 
I have consistently supported sound public policies to help the 
industry succeed in protecting the public's health and well-being. This 
legislation aims to build upon the successes of this industry, and help 
ensure that the positive changes to our health care system that 
prescription drugs have brought are not undermined by controversies 
such as the ones surrounding antidepressants and Cox-2 inhibitors, 
which are at least in part based on a lack of public information. This 
bill will help ensure that well-informed patients will use new and 
innovative medicines.
  Creating a clinical trials databank is a critical step toward 
ensuring the safety of drugs, biological products, and medical devices 
in this country--but it should not be the end of our efforts. However, 
other steps are necessary to fully restore patient confidence in the 
safety of the medicines they rely on.
  That is why today I am also introducing the Food and Drug 
Administration Safety Act (FDASA) with Senator Grassley. We are joined 
by Senators Mikulski and Bingaman in introducing this legislation and 
thank them for their support for reforming our nation's system to 
ensure that FDA-approved drugs being used by millions are safe and 
effective.
  Our legislation would enhance the FDA's drug-safety monitoring system 
by setting up an independent center within the FDA called the Center 
for Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics (CPER). 
This Center would be responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs and 
biologics once they are on the market, in consultation with other 
existing Centers at the FDA, and would have the authority to take 
corrective action if a drug or biologic presents a risk to patients. 
Under the bill, the Center Director is authorized to require 
manufacturers to conduct post-market clinical or observational studies 
if there are questions about the safety or efficacy of a drug or 
biologic once it is already on the market. The Center Director can take 
corrective actions to include labeling changes, restricted 
distribution, and other risk management tools if an unreasonable risk 
is found to exist. The bill also gives the Center Director the 
authority to review drug advertisements before they are disseminated, 
and to require certain disclosures about increased risk, and in extreme 
cases, the authority to pull the product off the market. Our bill 
authorizes $500 million over the next 5 years to provide the new center 
with the resources necessary to carry out the critically important 
provisions of this legislation.
  Under our legislation, the Director of CPER will report directly to 
the FDA Commissioner. Our bill will ensure that CPER consults with the 
other Centers at FDA as it conducts risk assessments, benefiting from 
their knowledge and expertise, but not being beholden to them if 
corrective action is needed.
  These new authorities will allow the FDA to act quickly to get 
answers when there are questions about the safety of a drug, and to act 
decisively to mitigate the risks when the evidence shows that a drug 
presents a safety issue. With these authorities, we will never again 
have a situation where a critical labeling change takes 2 years to 
complete, as was the case with Vioxx. When we are talking about drugs 
that are already on the market and in widespread use, any delay can put 
millions of patients in harm's way.
  By creating CPER we hope to restore confidence in the medicines that 
so many Americans rely on to safeguard their health and well-being. 
Patients should have the peace of mind that the drugs they take to help 
them will not hurt them instead. We must restore public confidence in 
the words ``FDA-Approved.'' Unfortunately, events of the past few years 
have seriously tarnished the FDA's image and put millions of patients 
at undue risk. Recent developments have cast into doubt the FDA's 
ability to ensure that the drugs that it approves are safe--especially 
once they are on the market. These concerns are bad for patients, bad 
for physicians, and bad for the pharmaceutical industry.
  Like many Americans, I have been deeply disturbed by the revelations 
of the significant risk associated with widely-used medications to 
treat pain and depression. These revelations raise legitimate questions 
about the safety of drugs that have already been approved. It would be 
one thing if these drugs were in a trial phase, but safety issues are 
being identified in drugs once they are on the market and in widespread 
use. Health risks significant enough to remove drugs from the market or 
significantly restrict their use are becoming clear only after millions 
of Americans have been exposed to real or potential harm.
  It has been estimated that more than 100,000 Americans might have 
been seriously injured or killed by a popular pain medication, while 
millions of children have been prescribed antidepressants that could 
put them at risk. This recent spate of popular medicines being 
identified as unsafe underscores the need to take additional steps to 
monitor and protect patient safety after a drug has been approved. 
Allowing the status quo on drug safety at the FDA is unacceptable. Real 
reform is needed now.
  An internal study conducted by the Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General in 2002 revealed that 
approximately one-fifth of drug reviewers were pressured to approve a 
drug despite concerns about safety, efficacy, or quality. In addition, 
more than one-third said they were ``not at all'' or only ``somewhat'' 
confident that final decisions of the Center for Drug Evaluation and 
Research (CDER) adequately assessed safety. A more recent survey of 997 
FDA scientists conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the 
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility found that 420

[[Page S1449]]

FDA scientists reported that they knew of cases in which HHS or FDA 
political appointees inappropriately injected themselves into FDA 
determinations or actions.
  I look forward to working with industry, physicians, medical 
journals, patient groups, and my colleagues--including the Chairman and 
Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, 
Senator Kennedy and Senator Enzi--to move this legislation forward. 
These bills have already been endorsed by Consumers Union, the U.S. 
Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), the National Women's Health 
Network, and Public Citizen. I thank these organizations for lending 
their expertise as we crafted these bills. I also want to recognize the 
New England Journal of Medicine and the American Psychiatric 
Association for their support in the crafting of the FACT Act.
  Clinical trials are critically important to protecting the safety and 
health of the American public. For this reason, clinical trial results 
must not be treated as information that can be hidden from scrutiny. 
Recent events have made it clear that a clinical trials databank is 
needed. Patients and physicians agree that such a databank is important 
to our public health. At the same time, there have been disturbing 
reports that suggest the FDA does not place enough emphasis on drug 
safety, and that concerns raised by those in the Office of Surveillance 
and Epidemiology (formerly the Office of Drug Safety) at CDER are 
sometimes ignored and even suppressed. Our legislation will ensure that 
those who are responsible for monitoring the safety of drugs already on 
the market at the FDA will have the independence, resources, and 
authority to ensure medicines intended to help patients won't instead 
end up causing them harm. I urge my colleagues to support these bills, 
and I am hopeful that they will become law as soon as possible.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Psychiatric 
Association supporting the FACT Act be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                             American Psychiatric Association,

                                  Arlington, VA, January 31, 2007.
     Hon. Christopher Dodd,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: The American Psychiatric Association 
     (APA) would like to commend and congratulate you on your 
     efforts to strengthen and improve clinical trial registries. 
     The FACT Act's goals of revamping the Food and Drug 
     Administration's post-marketing surveillance by ensuring that 
     access to clinical trials information is accessible and 
     available to the scientific community and the general public 
     is a goal shared by the APA.
       The APA is the national medical specialty society 
     representing more than 37,000 psychiatric physicians 
     nationwide who specialize in the diagnosis and treatment of 
     mental and emotional illnesses and substance use disorders. 
     APA advocates for patient access to information and supports 
     further post-market research of medications to ensure the 
     safety of patients. APA member David Fassler, M.D. testified 
     before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
     Committee on March 1, 2005 and subsequent FDA Advisory 
     Committee meetings. Dr. Fassler's testimony focused on key 
     recommendations to improve the FDA's drug approval process 
     outlining: The importance of access to comprehensive clinical 
     trial data including negative trials and unpublished results 
     to be housed in a publicly accessible registry; The need for 
     ongoing post-marketing surveillance with increased funding 
     for follow up; and The necessity of a workforce of 
     researchers, including experts who can assist with the 
     design, oversight, interpretation and reporting of clinical 
     research.
       The APA thanks you again for your dedication and commitment 
     to enhance the nation's drug safety monitoring system. We 
     look forward to working with you in ensuring that clinical 
     trial data is transparent and accountable in order for 
     patients to make well informed decisions. As your staff move 
     forward with further action on legislation, Lizbet Boroughs, 
     Deputy Director, Government Relations for the APA or Chatrane 
     Birbal, Federal Legislative Coordinator may be reached at 
     [email protected] 703/489-5907 or [email protected] 703/
     907-8584 respectively.
           Sincerely,
                                             James H. Scully, Jr.,
                                         CEO and Medical Director.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
bill be printed in the Record.

                                 S. 467

       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 ``Fair Access to Clinical 
     Trials Act of 2007'' or the ``FACT Act''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

       It is the purpose of this Act--
       (1) to create a publicly accessible national data bank of 
     clinical trial information comprised of a clinical trial 
     registry and a clinical trial results database;
       (2) to foster transparency and accountability in health-
     related intervention research and development;
       (3) to maintain a clinical trial registry accessible to 
     patients and health care practitioners seeking information 
     related to ongoing clinical trials for serious or life-
     threatening diseases and conditions; and
       (4) to establish a clinical trials results database of all 
     publicly and privately funded clinical trial results 
     regardless of outcome, that is accessible to the scientific 
     community, health care practitioners, and members of the 
     public.

     SEC. 3. CLINICAL TRIALS DATA BANK.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (i) of section 402 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282), as amended by 
     Public Law 109-482, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``for drugs for 
     serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``available to 
     individuals with serious'' and all that follows through the 
     period and inserting ``accessible to patients, other members 
     of the public, health care practitioners, researchers and the 
     scientific community. In making information about clinical 
     trials publicly available, the Secretary shall seek to be as 
     timely and transparent as possible.'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraphs (4) and (5), as paragraphs 
     (8) and (9), respectively;
       (4) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) The data bank shall include the following:
       ``(A)(i) A registry of clinical trials (in this 
     subparagraph referred to as the `registry') of health-related 
     interventions (whether federally or privately funded).
       ``(ii) The registry shall include information for all 
     clinical trials conducted to test the safety or effectiveness 
     (including comparative effectiveness) of any drug, biological 
     product, or device (including those drugs, biological 
     products, or devices approved or cleared by the Secretary) 
     intended to treat serious or life-threatening diseases and 
     conditions, except those Phase I clinical trials conducted to 
     test solely the safety of an unapproved drug or unlicensed 
     biological product, or pilot or feasibility studies conducted 
     to confirm the design and operating specifications of an 
     unapproved or not yet cleared medical device. For purposes of 
     this section, Phase I clinical trials are trials described in 
     section 313.12(a) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations 
     (or any successor regulations).
       ``(iii) The registry may include information for--
       ``(I) Phase I clinical trials conducted to test solely the 
     safety of an unapproved drug or unlicensed biological 
     product, or pilot or feasibility studies conducted to confirm 
     the design and operating specifications of an unapproved or 
     not yet cleared medical device with the consent of the 
     responsible person; and
       ``(II) clinical trials of other health-related 
     interventions with the consent of the responsible person.
       ``(iv) The information to be included in the registry under 
     this subparagraph shall include the following:
       ``(I) Descriptive information, including a brief title, 
     trial description in lay terminology, trial phase, trial 
     type, trial purpose, description of the primary and secondary 
     clinical outcome measures to be examined in the trial, the 
     time at which the outcome measures will be assessed, and the 
     dates and details of any revisions to such outcomes.
       ``(II) Recruitment information, including eligibility and 
     exclusion criteria, a description of whether, and through 
     what procedure, the manufacturer or sponsor of the 
     investigation of a new drug will respond to requests for 
     protocol exception, with appropriate safeguards, for single-
     patient and expanded protocol use of the new drug, 
     particularly in children, a statement as to whether the trial 
     is closed to enrollment of new patients, overall trial 
     status, individual site status, and estimated completion 
     date. For purposes of this section the term `completion date' 
     means the date of the last visit by subjects in the trial for 
     the outcomes described in subclause (I).
       ``(III) Location and contact information, including the 
     identity of the responsible person.
       ``(IV) Administrative data, including the study sponsor and 
     the study funding source.
       ``(V) Information pertaining to experimental treatments for 
     serious or life-threatening diseases and conditions (whether 
     federally or privately funded) that may be available--
       ``(aa) under a treatment investigational new drug 
     application that has been submitted to the Secretary under 
     section 360bbb(c) of title 21, Code of Federal Regulations; 
     or
       ``(bb) as a Group C cancer drug (as defined by the National 
     Cancer Institute).
       ``(B)(i) A clinical trial results database (in this 
     subparagraph referred to as the `database') of health-related 
     interventions (whether federally or privately funded).

[[Page S1450]]

       ``(ii) The database shall include information for all 
     clinical trials conducted to test the safety or effectiveness 
     (including comparative effectiveness) of any drug, biological 
     product, or device (including those drugs, biological 
     products, or devices approved or cleared by the Secretary), 
     except those Phase I clinical trials conducted to test solely 
     the safety of an unapproved drug or unlicensed biological 
     product, or pilot or feasibility studies conducted to confirm 
     the design and operating specifications of an unapproved or 
     not yet cleared medical device.
       ``(iii) The database may include information for--
       ``(I) Phase I clinical trials conducted to test solely the 
     safety of an unapproved drug or unlicensed biological 
     product, or pilot or feasibility studies conducted to confirm 
     the design and operating specifications of an unapproved or 
     not yet cleared medical device with the consent of the 
     responsible person; and
       ``(II) clinical trials of other health-related 
     interventions with the consent of the responsible person.
       ``(iv) The information to be included in the database under 
     this subparagraph shall include the following:
       ``(I) Descriptive information, including--
       ``(aa) a brief title;
       ``(bb) the drug, biological product or device to be tested;
       ``(cc) a trial description in lay terminology;
       ``(dd) the trial phase;
       ``(ee) the trial type;
       ``(ff) the trial purpose;
       ``(gg) demographic data such as age, gender, or ethnicity 
     of trial participants;
       ``(hh) the estimated completion date for the trial; and
       ``(ii) the study sponsor and the study funding source.
       ``(II) A description of the primary and secondary clinical 
     outcome measures to be examined in the trial, the time at 
     which the outcome measures will be assessed, and the dates 
     and details of any revisions to such outcomes.
       ``(III) The actual completion date of the trial and the 
     reasons for any difference from such actual date and the 
     estimated completion date submitted pursuant to subclause 
     (I)(ii). If the trial is not completed, the termination date 
     and reasons for such termination.
       ``(IV) A summary of the results of the trial in a standard, 
     non-promotional summary format (such as ICHE3 template form), 
     including the trial design and methodology, results of the 
     primary and secondary outcome measures as described in 
     subclause (II), summary data tables with respect to the 
     primary and secondary outcome measures, including information 
     on the statistical significance or lack thereof of such 
     results.
       ``(V) Safety data concerning the trial (including a summary 
     of all adverse events specifying the number and type of such 
     events, data on prespecified adverse events, data on serious 
     adverse events, and data on overall deaths).
       ``(VI) Any publications in peer reviewed journals relating 
     to the trial. If the trial results are published in a peer 
     reviewed journal, the database shall include a citation to 
     and, when available, a link to the journal article.
       ``(VII) A description of the process used to review the 
     results of the trial, including a statement about whether the 
     results have been peer reviewed by reviewers independent of 
     the trial sponsor.
       ``(VIII) If the trial addresses the safety, effectiveness, 
     or benefit of a use not described in the approved labeling 
     for the drug, biological product, or device, a statement, as 
     appropriate, displayed prominently at the beginning of the 
     data in the registry with respect to the trial, that the Food 
     and Drug Administration--
       ``(aa) is currently reviewing an application for approval 
     of such use to determine whether the use is safe and 
     effective;
       ``(bb) has disapproved an application for approval of such 
     use;
       ``(cc) has reviewed an application for approval of such use 
     but the application was withdrawn prior to approval or 
     disapproval; or
       ``(dd) has not reviewed or approved such use as safe and 
     effective.
       ``(IX) If data from the trial has not been submitted to the 
     Food and Drug Administration, an explanation of why it has 
     not been submitted.
       ``(X) A description of the protocol used in such trial to 
     the extent necessary to evaluate the results of such trial.
       ``(4)(A)(i) Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     completion of the review by the Food and Drug Administration 
     of information submitted by a sponsor in support of a new 
     drug application, or a supplemental new drug application, 
     whether or not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, 
     the Commissioner of Food and Drugs shall make available to 
     the public the full reviews conducted by the Administration 
     of such application, including documentation of significant 
     differences of opinion and the resolution of those 
     differences.
       ``(ii) When submitting information in support of a new drug 
     application or a supplemental new drug application, the 
     sponsor shall certify, in writing, that the information 
     submitted to the Food and Drug Administration complies with 
     the requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     and that such information presented is accurate.
       ``(iii) If the sponsor fails to provide certification as 
     specified under clause (ii), the Secretary shall transmit to 
     the sponsor a notice stating that such sponsor shall submit 
     the certification by the date determined by the Secretary. 
     If, by the date specified by the Secretary in the notice 
     under this clause, the Secretary has not received the 
     certification, the Secretary, after providing the opportunity 
     for a hearing, shall order such sponsor to pay a civil 
     monetary penalty of $10,000 for each day after such date that 
     the certification is not submitted.
       ``(iv) If the Secretary determines, after notice and 
     opportunity for a hearing, that the sponsor knew or should 
     have known that the information submitted in support of a new 
     drug application or a supplemental new drug application was 
     inaccurate, the Secretary shall order such sponsor to pay a 
     civil monetary penalty of not less than $100,000 but not to 
     exceed $2,000,000 for any 30-day period.
       ``(B)(i) The Secretary shall deposit the funds collected 
     under subparagraph (A) into an account and use such funds, in 
     consultation with the Director of the Agency for Healthcare 
     Research and Quality, to fund studies that compare the 
     clinical effectiveness of 2 or more treatments for similar 
     diseases or conditions.
       ``(ii) The Secretary shall award funding under clause (i) 
     based on a priority list established not later than 6 months 
     after the date of enactment of the FACT Act by the Director 
     of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and 
     periodically updated as determined appropriate by the 
     Director.
       ``(C) Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     completion of a written consultation on a drug concerning the 
     drug's safety conducted by the Office of Surveillance and 
     Epidemiology, regardless of whether initiated by such Office 
     or outside of the Office, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs 
     shall make available to the public a copy of such 
     consultation in full.
       ``(D) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to alter 
     or amend section 301(j) or section 1905 of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       ``(E) This paragraph shall supersede section 552 of title 
     5, United States Code.
       ``(5) The information described in subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B) of paragraph (3) shall be in a format that can be readily 
     accessed and understood by members of the general public, 
     including patients seeking to enroll as subjects in clinical 
     trials.
       ``(6) The Secretary shall assign each clinical trial a 
     unique identifier to be included in the registry and in the 
     database described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph 
     (3). To the extent practicable, this identifier shall be 
     consistent with other internationally recognized and used 
     identifiers.
       ``(7) To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure 
     that where the same information is required for the registry 
     and the database described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     paragraph (3), a process exists to allow the responsible 
     person to make only one submission.''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(10) In this section, the term `clinical trial' with 
     respect to the registry and the database described in 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (3) means a research 
     study in human volunteers to answer specific health 
     questions, including treatment trials, prevention trials, 
     diagnostic trials, screening trials, and quality of life 
     trials.''.
       (b) Actions of Secretary Regarding Clinical Trials.--
     Section 402 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282), 
     as amended by Public Law 109-482, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (j) and (k) as subsections 
     (o) and (p), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (i), the following:
       ``(j) Federally Supported Trials.--
       ``(1) All federally supported trials.--With respect to any 
     clinical trial described in subsection (i)(3)(B) that is 
     supported solely by a grant, contract, or cooperative 
     agreement awarded by the Secretary, the principal 
     investigator of such trial shall, not later than the date 
     specified in paragraph (2), submit to the Secretary--
       ``(A) the information described in subclauses (II) through 
     (X) of subsection (i)(3)(B)(iv), and with respect to clinical 
     trials in progress on the date of enactment of the FACT Act, 
     the information described in subclause (I) of subsection 
     (i)(3)(B)(iv); or
       ``(B) a statement containing information sufficient to 
     demonstrate to the Secretary that the information described 
     in subparagraph (A) cannot reasonably be submitted, along 
     with an estimated date of submission of the information 
     described in such subparagraph.
       ``(2) Date specified.--The date specified in this paragraph 
     shall be the date that is 1 year from the earlier of--
       ``(A) the estimated completion date of the trial, as 
     submitted under subsection (i)(3)(B)(vi)(I)(ii); or
       ``(B) the actual date of the completion or termination of 
     the trial.
       ``(3) Condition of federal grants, contracts, and 
     cooperative agreements.--
       ``(A) Certification of compliance.--To be eligible to 
     receive a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement from the 
     Secretary for the conduct or support of a clinical trial 
     described in subsection (i)(3)(B), the principal investigator 
     involved shall certify to the Secretary that--
       ``(i) such investigator shall submit data to the Secretary 
     in accordance with this subsection; and
       ``(ii) such investigator has complied with the requirements 
     of this subsection with respect to other clinical trials 
     conducted by

[[Page S1451]]

     such investigator after the date of enactment of the FACT 
     Act.
       ``(B) Failure to submit certification.--An investigator 
     that fails to submit a certification as required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be eligible to receive a grant, 
     contract, or cooperative agreement from the Secretary for the 
     conduct or support of a clinical trial described in 
     subsection (i)(3)(B).
       ``(C) Failure to comply with certification.--If, by the 
     date specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary has not 
     received the information or statement described in paragraph 
     (1), the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) transmit to the principal investigator involved a 
     notice specifying the information or statement required to be 
     submitted to the Secretary and stating that such investigator 
     shall not be eligible to receive further funding from the 
     Secretary if such information or statement is not submitted 
     to the Secretary within 30 days of the date on which such 
     notice is transmitted; and
       ``(ii) include and prominently display, until such time as 
     the Secretary receives the information or statement described 
     in paragraph (1), as part of the record of such trial in the 
     database described in subsection (i), a notice stating that 
     the results of such trials have not been reported as required 
     by law.
       ``(D) Failure to comply with notice.--If by the date that 
     is 30 days after the date on which the notice described in 
     subparagraph (C) is transmitted, the Secretary has not 
     received from the principal investigator involved the 
     information or statement required pursuant to such notice, 
     the Secretary may not award a grant, contract, cooperative 
     agreement, or any other award to such principal investigator 
     until such principal investigator submits to the Secretary 
     the information or statement required pursuant to such 
     notice.
       ``(E) Submission of statement but not information.--
       ``(i) In general.--If by the date specified in paragraph 
     (2), the Secretary has received a statement described in 
     paragraph (1)(B) but not the information described in 
     paragraph (1)(A), the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     principal investigator involved a notice stating that such 
     investigator shall submit such information by the date 
     determined by the Secretary in consultation with such 
     investigator.
       ``(ii) Failure to comply with certification.--If, by the 
     date specified by the Secretary in the notice under clause 
     (i), the Secretary has not received the information described 
     in paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary shall--

       ``(I) transmit to the principal investigator involved a 
     notice specifying the information required to be submitted to 
     the Secretary and stating that such investigator shall not be 
     eligible to receive further funding from the Secretary if 
     such information is not submitted to the Secretary within 30 
     days of the date on which such notice is transmitted; and
       ``(II) include and prominently display, until such time as 
     the Secretary receives the information described in paragraph 
     (1)(B), as part of the record of such trial in the database 
     described in subsection (i), a notice stating that the 
     results of such trials have not been reported as required by 
     law.

       ``(F) Failure to comply with notice.--If by the date that 
     is 30 days after the date on which the notice described in 
     subparagraph (E)(ii)(I) is transmitted, the Secretary has not 
     received from the principal investigator involved the 
     information required pursuant to such notice, the Secretary 
     may not award a grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or 
     any other award to such principal investigator until such 
     principal investigator submits to the Secretary the 
     information required pursuant to such notice.
       ``(G) Rule of construction.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, limitations on the awarding of grants, contracts, 
     cooperative agreements, or any other awards to principal 
     investigators for violations of this paragraph shall not be 
     construed to include any funding that supports the clinical 
     trial involved.
       ``(4) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection 
     shall be construed to prevent an investigator other than the 
     investigator described in paragraph (3)(F) from receiving an 
     ongoing award, contract, or cooperative agreement.
       ``(5) Inclusion in registry.--
       ``(A) General rule.--The Secretary shall, pursuant to 
     subsection (i)(5), include--
       ``(i) the data described in subsection (i)(3)(A) and 
     submitted under the amendments made by section 4(a) of the 
     FACT Act in the registry described in subsection (i) as soon 
     as practicable after receiving such data; and
       ``(ii) the data described in clause (I) of subsection 
     (i)(3)(B)(iv) and submitted under this subsection or the 
     amendments made by section 4(a) of the FACT Act in the 
     database described in subsection (i) as soon as practicable 
     after receiving such data.
       ``(B) Other data.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall, pursuant to 
     subsection (i)(5), include the data described in subclauses 
     (II) through (X) of subsection (i)(3)(B)(iv) and submitted 
     under this section in the database described in subsection 
     (i)--

       ``(I) as soon as practicable after receiving such data; or
       ``(II) in the case of data to which clause (ii) applies, by 
     the date described in clause (iii).

       ``(ii) Data described.--This clause applies to data 
     described in clause (i) if--

       ``(I) the principal investigator involved requests a delay 
     in the inclusion in the database of such data in order to 
     have such data published in a peer reviewed journal; and
       ``(II) the Secretary determines that an attempt will be 
     made to seek such publication.

       ``(iii) Date for inclusion in registry.--Subject to clause 
     (iv), the date described in this clause is the earlier of--

       ``(I) the date on which the data involved is published as 
     provided for in clause (ii); or
       ``(II) the date that is 18 months after the date on which 
     such data is submitted to the Secretary.

       ``(iv) Extension of date.--The Secretary may extend the 18-
     month period described in clause (iii)(II) for an additional 
     6 months if the principal investigator demonstrates to the 
     Secretary, prior to the expiration of such 18-month period, 
     that the data involved has been accepted for publication by a 
     journal described in clause (ii)(I).
       ``(v) Modification of data.--Prior to including data in the 
     database under clause (ii) or (iv), the Secretary shall 
     permit the principal investigator to modify the data 
     involved.
       ``(6) Memorandum of understanding.--Not later than 6 months 
     after the date of enactment of the FACT Act, the Secretary 
     shall seek a memorandum of understanding with the heads of 
     all other Federal agencies that conduct clinical trials to 
     include in the registry and the database clinical trials 
     sponsored by such agencies that meet the requirements of this 
     subsection.
       ``(7) Application to certain persons.--The provisions of 
     this subsection shall apply to a responsible person described 
     in subsections (n)(1)(A)(ii)(II) or (n)(1)(B)(i)(II).
       ``(k) Trials With Non-Federal Support.--
       ``(1) In general.--The responsible person for a clinical 
     trial described in subsection (i)(3)(B) shall, not later than 
     the date specified in paragraph (3), submit to the 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) the information described in subclauses (II) through 
     (X) of subsection (i)(3)(B)(iv), and with respect to clinical 
     trials in progress on the date of enactment of the FACT Act, 
     the information described in subclause (I) of subsection 
     (i)(3)(B)(iv); or
       ``(B) a statement containing information sufficient to 
     demonstrate to the Secretary that the information described 
     in subparagraph (A) cannot reasonably be submitted, along 
     with an estimated date of submission of the information 
     described in such subparagraph.
       ``(2) Sanction in case of noncompliance.--
       ``(A) Initial noncompliance.--If by the date specified in 
     paragraph (3), the Secretary has not received the information 
     or statement required to be submitted to the Secretary under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall--
       ``(i) transmit to the responsible person for such trial a 
     notice stating that such responsible person shall be liable 
     for the civil monetary penalties described in subparagraph 
     (B) if the required information or statement is not submitted 
     to the Secretary within 30 days of the date on which such 
     notice is transmitted; and
       ``(ii) include and prominently display, until such time as 
     the Secretary receives the information described in paragraph 
     (1), as part of the record of such trial in the database 
     described in subsection (i), a notice stating that the 
     results of such trials have not been reported as required by 
     law.
       ``(B) Civil monetary penalties for noncompliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--If by the date that is 30 days after the 
     date on which a notice described in subparagraph (A) is 
     transmitted, the Secretary has not received from the 
     responsible person involved the information or statement 
     required pursuant to such notice, the Secretary shall, after 
     providing the opportunity for a hearing, order such 
     responsible person to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 for each 
     day after such date that the information or statement is not 
     submitted.
       ``(ii) Waivers.--In any case in which a responsible person 
     described in clause (i) is a nonprofit entity, the Secretary 
     may waive or reduce the penalties applicable under such 
     clause to such person.
       ``(C) Submission of statement but not information.--
       ``(i) In general.--If by the date specified in paragraph 
     (3), the Secretary has received a statement described in 
     paragraph (1)(B) but not the information described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) the Secretary shall transmit to the 
     responsible person involved a notice stating that such 
     responsible person shall submit such information by the date 
     determined by the Secretary in consultation with such 
     responsible person.
       ``(ii) Failure to comply.--If, by the date specified by the 
     Secretary in the notice under clause (i), the Secretary has 
     not received the information described in paragraph (1)(A), 
     the Secretary shall--

       ``(I) transmit to the responsible person involved a notice 
     specifying the information required to be submitted to the 
     Secretary and stating that such responsible person shall be 
     liable for the civil monetary penalties described in 
     subparagraph (D) if such information is not submitted to the 
     Secretary within 30 days of the date on which such notice is 
     transmitted; and
       ``(II) include and prominently display, until such time as 
     the Secretary receives the information described in paragraph 
     (1)(A), as part of the record of such trial in the database 
     described in subsection (i), a notice stating that the 
     results of such trials have not been reported as required by 
     law.

[[Page S1452]]

       ``(D) Noncompliance.--
       ``(i) In general.--If by the date that is 30 days after the 
     date on which a notice described in subparagraph (C)(ii)(I) 
     is transmitted, the Secretary has not received from the 
     responsible person involved the information required pursuant 
     to such notice, the Secretary, after providing the 
     opportunity for a hearing, shall order such responsible 
     person to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 for each day after 
     such date that the information is not submitted.
       ``(ii) Waivers.--In any case in which a responsible person 
     described in clause (i) is a nonprofit entity, the Secretary 
     may waive or reduce the penalties applicable under such 
     clause to such person.
       ``(E) Notice of publication of data.--If the responsible 
     person is the manufacturer or distributor of the drug, 
     biological product, or device involved, the notice under 
     subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C)(ii)(I) shall include a notice 
     that the Secretary shall publish the data described in 
     subsection (i)(3)(B) in the database if the responsible 
     person has not submitted the information specified in the 
     notice transmitted by the date that is 6 months after the 
     date of such notice.
       ``(F) Publication of data.--Notwithstanding section 301(j) 
     of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, section 1905 of 
     title 18, United States Code, or any other provision of law, 
     if the responsible person is the manufacturer or distributor 
     of the drug, biological product, or device involved, and if 
     the responsible person has not submitted to the Secretary the 
     information specified in a notice transmitted pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A)(i) or (C)(ii)(I) by the date that is 6 
     months after the date of such notice, the Secretary shall 
     publish in the registry information that--
       ``(i) is described in subsection (i)(3)(B); and
       ``(ii) the responsible person has submitted to the 
     Secretary in any application, including a supplemental 
     application, for the drug or device under section 505, 510, 
     515, or 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act or 
     for the biological product under section 351.
       ``(3) Date specified.--The date specified in this paragraph 
     shall be the date that is 1 year from the earlier of--
       ``(A) the estimated completion date of the trial, submitted 
     under subsection (i)(3)(B)(vi)(I)(ii); or
       ``(B) the actual date of completion or termination of the 
     trial.
       ``(4) Use of funds.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall deposit the funds 
     collected under paragraph (2) into an account and use such 
     funds, in consultation with the Director of the Agency for 
     Healthcare Research and Quality, to fund studies that compare 
     the clinical effectiveness of 2 or more treatments for 
     similar diseases or conditions.
       ``(B) Funding decisions.--The Secretary shall award funding 
     under subparagraph (A) based on a priority list established 
     not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the 
     FACT Act by the Director of the Agency for Healthcare 
     Research and Quality and periodically updated as determined 
     appropriate by the Director.
       ``(5) Inclusion in registry.--
       ``(A) General rule.--The Secretary shall, pursuant to 
     subsection (i)(5), include--
       ``(i) the data described in subsection (i)(3)(A) and 
     submitted under the amendments made by section 4(a) of the 
     FACT Act in the registry described in subsection (i) as soon 
     as practicable after receiving such data; and
       ``(ii) the data described in clause (I) of subsection 
     (i)(3)(B)(iv) and submitted under this subsection in the 
     database described in subsection (i) as soon as practicable 
     after receiving such data.
       ``(B) Other data.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall, pursuant to 
     subsection (i)(5), include the data described in subclauses 
     (II) through (X) of subsection (i)(3)(B)(iv) and submitted 
     under this section in the database described in subsection 
     (i)--

       ``(I) as soon as practicable after receiving such data; or
       ``(II) in the case of data to which clause (ii) applies, by 
     the date described in clause (iii).

       ``(ii) Data described.--This clause applies to data 
     described in clause (i) if--

       ``(I) the responsible person involved requests a delay in 
     the inclusion in the database of such data in order to have 
     such data published in a peer reviewed journal; and
       ``(II) the Secretary determines that an attempt will be 
     made to seek such publication.

       ``(iii) Date for inclusion in registry.--Subject to clause 
     (iv), the date described in this clause is the earlier of--

       ``(I) the date on which the data involved is published as 
     provided for in clause (ii); or
       ``(II) the date that is 18 months after the date on which 
     such data is submitted to the Secretary.

       ``(iv) Extension of date.--The Secretary may extend the 18-
     month period described in clause (iii)(II) for an additional 
     6 months if the responsible person demonstrates to the 
     Secretary, prior to the expiration of such 18-month period, 
     that the data involved has been accepted for publication by a 
     journal described in clause (ii)(I).
       ``(v) Modification of data.--Prior to including data in the 
     database under clause (ii) or (iv), the Secretary shall 
     permit the responsible person to modify the data involved.
       ``(6) Effect.--The information with respect to a clinical 
     trial submitted to the Secretary under this subsection, 
     including data published by the Secretary pursuant to 
     paragraph (2)(F), may not be submitted by a person other than 
     the responsible person as part of, or referred to in, an 
     application for approval of a drug or device under section 
     505, 510, 515, or 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
     Act or of a biological product under section 351, unless the 
     information is available from a source other than the 
     registry or database described in subsection (i).
       ``(l) Procedures and Waivers.--
       ``(1) Submission prior to notice.--Nothing in subsections 
     (j) through (k) shall be construed to prevent a principal 
     investigator or a responsible person from submitting any 
     information required under this subsection to the Secretary 
     prior to receiving any notice described in such subsections.
       ``(2) Ongoing trials.--A factually accurate statement that 
     a clinical trial is ongoing shall be deemed to be information 
     sufficient to demonstrate to the Secretary that the 
     information described in subsections (j)(1)(A) and (k)(1)(A) 
     cannot reasonably be submitted.
       ``(3) Information previously submitted.--Nothing in 
     subsections (j) through (k) shall be construed to require the 
     Secretary to send a notice to any principal investigator or 
     responsible person requiring the submission to the Secretary 
     of information that has already been submitted.
       ``(4) Submission format and technical standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall, to the extent 
     practicable, accept submissions required under this 
     subsection in an electronic format and shall establish 
     interoperable technical standards for such submissions.
       ``(B) Consistency of standards.--To the extent practicable, 
     the standards established under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     consistent with standards adopted by the Consolidated Health 
     Informatics Initiative (or a successor organization to such 
     Initiative) to the extent such Initiative (or successor) is 
     in operation.
       ``(5) Trials completed prior to enactment.--The Secretary 
     shall establish procedures and mechanisms to allow for the 
     voluntary submission to the database of the information 
     described in subsection (i)(3)(B) with respect to clinical 
     trials completed prior to the date of enactment of the FACT 
     Act. In cases in which it is in the interest of public 
     health, the Secretary may require that information from such 
     trials be submitted to the database. To the extent 
     practicable, submissions to the database shall comply with 
     paragraph (4). Failure to comply with a requirement to submit 
     information to the database under this paragraph shall be 
     deemed to be a failure to submit information as required 
     under this section, and the appropriate remedies and 
     sanctions under this section shall apply.
       ``(6) Trials not involving drugs, biological products, or 
     devices.--The Secretary shall establish procedures and 
     mechanisms to allow for the voluntary submission to the 
     database of the information described in subsection (i)(3)(B) 
     with respect to clinical trials that do not involve drugs, 
     biological products, or devices. In cases in which it is in 
     the interest of public health, the Secretary may require that 
     information from such trials be submitted to the database. 
     Failure to comply with such a requirement shall be deemed to 
     be a failure to submit information as required under this 
     section, and the appropriate remedies and sanctions under 
     this section shall apply.
       ``(7) Submission of inaccurate information.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines that 
     information submitted by a principal investigator or a 
     responsible person under this section is factually and 
     substantively inaccurate, the Secretary shall submit a notice 
     to the investigator or responsible person concerning such 
     inaccuracy that includes--
       ``(i) a summary of the inaccuracies involved; and
       ``(ii) a request for corrected information within 30 days.
       ``(B) Audit of information.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may conduct audits of any 
     information submitted under subsection (i).
       ``(ii) Requirement.--Any principal investigator or 
     responsible person that has submitted information under 
     subsection (i) shall permit the Secretary to conduct the 
     audit described in clause (i).
       ``(C) Changes to information.--Any change in the 
     information submitted by a principal investigator or a 
     responsible person under this section shall be reported to 
     the Secretary within 30 days of the date on which such 
     investigator or person became aware of the change for 
     purposes of updating the registry or the database.
       ``(D) Failure to correct.--If a principal investigator or a 
     responsible person fails to permit an audit under 
     subparagraph (B), provide corrected information pursuant to a 
     notice under subparagraph (A), or provide changed information 
     under subparagraph (C), the investigator or responsible 
     person involved shall be deemed to have failed to submit 
     information as required under this section and the 
     appropriate remedies and sanction under this section shall 
     apply.
       ``(E) Corrections.--
       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may correct, through any 
     means deemed appropriate by the Secretary to protect public 
     health, any information included in the registry or the 
     database described in subsection (i) (including information 
     described or contained in a publication referred to under 
     subclause (VI) of subsection (i)(3)(B)(iv)) that is--

[[Page S1453]]

       ``(I) submitted to the Secretary for inclusion in the 
     registry or the database; and
       ``(II) factually and substantively inaccurate or false or 
     misleading.

       ``(ii) Reliance on information.--The Secretary may rely on 
     any information from a clinical trial or a report of an 
     adverse event acquired or produced under the authority of 
     section 351 of this Act or of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act in determining whether to make corrections as 
     provided for in clause (i).
       ``(iii) Determinations relating to misleading 
     information.--For purposes of clause (i)(II), in determining 
     whether information is misleading, the Secretary shall use 
     the standard described in section 201(n) of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act that is used to determine whether 
     labeling or advertising is misleading.
       ``(iv) Rule of construction.--This subparagraph shall not 
     be construed to authorize the disclosure of information if--

       ``(I) such disclosure would constitute an invasion of 
     personal privacy;
       ``(II) such information concerns a method or process which 
     as a trade secret is entitled to protection within the 
     meaning of section 301(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act;
       ``(III) such disclosure would disclose confidential 
     commercial information or a trade secret, other than a trade 
     secret described in subclause (II), unless such disclosure is 
     necessary--

       ``(aa) to make a correction as provided for under clause 
     (i); and
       ``(bb) protect the public health; or

       ``(IV) such disclosure relates to a biological product for 
     which no license is in effect under section 351, a drug for 
     which no approved application is in effect under section 
     505(c) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or a 
     device that is not cleared under section 510(k) of such Act 
     or for which no application is in effect under section 515 of 
     such Act.

       ``(v) Notice.--In the case of a disclosure under clause 
     (iv)(III), the Secretary shall notify the manufacturer or 
     distributor of the drug, biological product, or device 
     involved--

       ``(I) at least 30 days prior to such disclosure; or
       ``(II) if immediate disclosure is necessary to protect the 
     public health, concurrently with such disclosure.

       ``(8) Waivers regarding clinical trial results.--The 
     Secretary may waive the requirements of subsections (j)(1) 
     and (k)(1) that the results of clinical trials be submitted 
     to the Secretary, upon a written request from the responsible 
     person if the Secretary determines that extraordinary 
     circumstances justify the waiver and that providing the 
     waiver is in the public interest, consistent with the 
     protection of public health, or in the interest of national 
     security. Not later than 30 days after any part of a waiver 
     is granted, the Secretary shall notify, in writing, the 
     appropriate committees of Congress of the waiver and provide 
     an explanation for why the waiver was granted.
       ``(m) Trials Conducted Outside of the United States.--
       ``(1) In general.--With respect to clinical trials 
     described in paragraph (2), the responsible person shall 
     submit to the Secretary the information required under 
     subclauses (II) through (X) of subsection (i)(3)(B)(iv). The 
     Secretary shall ensure that the information described in the 
     preceding sentence is made available in the database under 
     subsection (i) in a timely manner. Submissions to the 
     database shall comply with subsection (l)(4) to the extent 
     practicable. The Secretary shall include the information 
     described in the preceding sentence in the database under 
     subsection (i) as soon as practicable after receiving such 
     information. Failure to comply with this paragraph shall be 
     deemed to be a failure to submit information as required 
     under this section, and the appropriate remedies and 
     sanctions under this section shall apply.
       ``(2) Clinical trial described.--A clinical trial is 
     described in this paragraph if--
       ``(A) such trial is conducted outside of the United States; 
     and
       ``(B) the data from such trial is--
       ``(i) submitted to the Secretary as part of an application, 
     including a supplemental application, for a drug or device 
     under section 505, 510, 515, or 520 of the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act or for the biological product under 
     section 351; or
       ``(ii) used in advertising or labeling to make a claim 
     about the drug, device, or biological product involved.
       ``(n) Definitions; Individual Liability.--
       ``(1) Responsible person.--
       ``(A) In general.--In this section, the term `responsible 
     person' with respect to a clinical trial, means--
       ``(i) if such clinical trial is the subject of an 
     investigational new drug application or an application for an 
     investigational device exemption, the sponsor of such 
     investigational new drug application or such application for 
     an investigational device exemption; or
       ``(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (B), if such 
     clinical trial is not the subject of an investigational new 
     drug application or an application for an investigational 
     device exemption--

       ``(I) the person that provides the largest share of the 
     monetary support (such term does not include in-kind support) 
     for the conduct of such trial; or
       ``(II) in the case in which the person described in 
     subclause (I) is a Federal or State agency, the principal 
     investigator of such trial.

       ``(B) Nonprofit entities and requesting persons.--
       ``(i) Nonprofit entities.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(ii)(I), if the person that provides the largest share of 
     the monetary support for the conduct of the clinical trial 
     involved is a nonprofit entity, the responsible person for 
     purposes of this section shall be--

       ``(I) the nonprofit entity; or
       ``(II) if the nonprofit entity and the principal 
     investigator of such trial jointly certify to the Secretary 
     that the principal investigator will be responsible for 
     submitting the information described in subsection (i)(3)(B) 
     for such trial, the principal investigator.

       ``(ii) Requesting persons.--For purposes of subparagraph 
     (A)(ii)(I), if a person--

       ``(I) has submitted a request to the Secretary that the 
     Secretary recognize the person as the responsible person for 
     purposes of this section; and
       ``(II) the Secretary determines that such person--

       ``(aa) provides monetary support for the conduct of such 
     trial;
       ``(bb) is responsible for the conduct of such trial; and
       ``(cc) will be responsible for submitting the information 
     described in subsection (i)(3)(B) for such trial;

     such person shall be the responsible person for purposes of 
     this section.
       ``(2) Drug, device, biological product.--In this section--
       ``(A) the terms `drug' and `device' have the meanings given 
     such terms in section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act; and
       ``(B) the term `biological product' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 351 of this Act.
       ``(3) Individual liability.--
       ``(A) Limitation on liability of individuals.--No 
     individual shall be liable for any civil monetary penalty 
     under this section.
       ``(B) Individuals who are responsible persons.--If a 
     responsible person under subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph 
     (1) is an individual, such individual shall be subject to the 
     procedures and conditions described in subsection (j).''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 402 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282), as amended by this 
     section, is further amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(q) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this section.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 402(c)(1)(D) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(c)(1)(D)), as 
     amended by Public Law 109-482, is amended by striking 
     ``402(k)'' and inserting ``402(p)''.

     SEC. 4. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSALS FOR RESEARCH.

       (a) Amendments.--Section 492A(a) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289a-1(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``unless'' and all 
     that follows through the period and inserting the following: 
     ``unless--
       ``(i) the application has undergone review in accordance 
     with such section and has been recommended for approval by a 
     majority of the members of the Board conducting the review;
       ``(ii) such Board has submitted to the Secretary a 
     notification of such approval; and
       ``(iii) with respect to an application involving a clinical 
     trial to which section 402(i) applies, the principal 
     investigator who has submitted such application has submitted 
     to the Secretary for inclusion in the registry and the 
     database described in section 402(i) the information 
     described in paragraph (3)(A) and subclause (I) of paragraph 
     (3)(B)(iv) of such section.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Cost recovery.--Nonprofit entities may recover the 
     full costs associated with compliance with the requirements 
     of paragraph (1) from the Secretary as a direct cost of 
     research.''.
       (b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall modify the regulations promulgated at part 46 
     of title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, part 50 of title 
     21, Code of Federal Regulations, and part 56 of title 21, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, to reflect the amendments made 
     by subsection (a).
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 492A(a)(2) of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289a-1(a)(2)), as amended by 
     Public Law 109-482, is amended by striking ``402(k)'' and 
     inserting ``402(p)''.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITED ACTS.

       Section 301 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 331) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii)(1) The entering into of a contract or other 
     agreement by a responsible person or a manufacturer of a 
     drug, biological product, or device with an individual who is 
     not an employee of such responsible person or manufacturer, 
     or the performance of any other act by such a responsible 
     person or manufacturer, that prohibits, limits, or imposes 
     unreasonable delays on the ability of such individual to--
       ``(A) discuss the results of a clinical trial at a 
     scientific meeting or any other public or private forum; or
       ``(B) publish the results of a clinical trial or a 
     description or discussion of the results of a clinical trial 
     in a scientific journal or any other publication.

[[Page S1454]]

       ``(2) The entering into a contract or other agreement by a 
     responsible person or a manufacturer of a drug, biological 
     product, or device with an academic institution or a health 
     care facility, or the performance of any other act by such a 
     responsible person or manufacturer, that prohibits, limits, 
     or imposes unreasonable delays on the ability of an 
     individual who is not an employee of such responsible person 
     or manufacturer to--
       ``(A) discuss the results of a clinical trial at a 
     scientific meeting or any other public or private forum; or
       ``(B) publish the results of a clinical trial or a 
     description or discussion of the results of a clinical trial 
     in a scientific journal or any other publication.''.

     SEC. 6. REPORTS.

       (a) Implementation Report.--Not later than 1 year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall submit to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress a report on the status of the implementation of the 
     requirements of the amendments made by section 3 that 
     includes a description of the number and types of clinical 
     trials for which information has been submitted under such 
     amendments.
       (b) Data Collection.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services 
     shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine 
     for the conduct of a study concerning the extent to which 
     data submitted to the registry under section 402(i) of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 282(i)) has impacted the 
     public health.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date on 
     which a contract is entered into under paragraph (1), the 
     Institute of Medicine shall submit to the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services a report on the results of the study 
     conducted under such paragraph. Such report shall include 
     recommendations for changes to the registry, the database, 
     and the data submission requirements that would benefit the 
     public health.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I am pleased to have bipartisan 
sponsorship of two very important bills with Senator Dodd of 
Connecticut that are being introduced today, the Food and Drug 
Administration Safety Act of 2007 and the Fair Access to Clinical 
Trials Act of 2007.
  These bills are part of a sustained effort to restore public 
confidence in the Federal Government's food and drug safety program and 
to make sure the agency does all it can to protect the public.
  Enactment of those two bills would provide doctors and patients with 
more information about the risks and benefits of their medicines and 
bring about greater transparency and accountability of the Food and 
Drug Administration.
  I am sure my colleagues realize I have been involved in oversight of 
the Food and Drug Administration for now at least 3 years, and it has 
been in response to concerns about the reluctance of the Food and Drug 
Administration to provide information to the public about the increased 
suicide risks for young people taking antidepressants.
  In November 2004, I chaired a groundbreaking hearing on drug safety 
involving the Food and Drug Administration and the drug Vioxx. That 
hearing and other critical drug safety concerns that have come to light 
since then highlight the need for comprehensive and systematic reforms 
as well as more stringent oversight of the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Over the past 3 years, it has become increasingly apparent that the 
Food and Drug Administration has repeatedly failed to protect the 
public from an industry that focuses all too often on profits, even 
when those profits come at the expense of ``John Q. Public.''
  In 2005, then, and because of this, Senator Dodd and I introduced 
almost identical companion bills to advance serious reforms at the Food 
and Drug Administration. In the 2 years following the introduction of 
those bills, however, the Food and Drug Administration failed to take 
comprehensive and systematic steps toward restoring public confidence 
in that agency, as well as the necessity of strengthening public 
safety.
  Yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration released its response to 
the Institute of Medicine's 2006 report on drug safety. The two safety 
bills introduced today are not intended to supplant the plans 
articulated in the Food and Drug Administration's response but, rather, 
to augment those plans and to provide the FDA with additional 
enforcement tools, something they now lack.
  In fact, one of our bills is intended to specifically address a 
serious problem that was also identified by the Institute of Medicine. 
Dr. Alta Charo, a member of the Institute of Medicine committee that 
wrote the report on drug safety, stated in the newspaper USA Today:

       I have to confess I'm disappointed that they--

  Meaning the FDA--

     ignored one of our most critical recommendations.

  According to the USA Today article, she was referring to the 
Institute of Medicine's recommendation that the Food and Drug 
Administration give more clout to the office that monitors drugs after 
they go to market. I want you to know I agree with Dr. Charo.
  The Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 2007 would then 
establish an independent center within the Food and Drug 
Administration. The name of the center would be the Center for 
Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics. The 
director of this center would report directly to the Food and Drug 
Administration Commissioner and would be responsible for conducting 
risk assessments for approved drugs and biological products.
  The new center would also be responsible for ensuring the safety and 
effectiveness of drugs once they are on the market. Unfortunately, the 
problem we are trying to solve is that now at the FDA, the office that 
reviews drug safety postmarketing is a mere consultant and under the 
thumb of the office that puts the drugs on the market in the first 
place.
  Even more troubling is the fact that those who speak out of line are 
targeted. Whistleblowers, as we call them, are targeted. They are very 
helpful to Congress in ferreting out wrongdoing, that laws are not 
being faithfully executed, that money is not being spent according to 
congressional intent. So they speak out at the FDA and point out a lot 
of things that are wrong. And what do they get for it? They are treated 
like a skunk at a picnic. They are targeted.
  So this legislation we put before us would provide the new center 
with the independence and authority to promptly identify serious safety 
risks and take necessary actions to protect the public, and I hope 
eliminate some of the intimidation against whistleblowers.
  At the same time, the intra-agency communication is essential in 
addressing drug safety. So this legislation would encourage 
communication between the center and other centers and offices, or 
let's say subagencies at the Food and Drug Administration that handle 
drugs and biological products, to do what is best for the consumer and 
not have big PhRMA having undue influence.
  The second bill we are introducing would expand an existing Web site, 
www.clinicaltrials.gov, to create a publicly accessible national 
databank of clinical trial information. The databank would be comprised 
of a clinical trial registry and a clinical trial results database of 
all publicly and privately funded clinical trials so that everything is 
out there for the public to consider, not letting somebody choose: 
Well, if this is a little negative toward our drug, we will not make 
that public. All the positive stuff, of course, we will make public.
  So I think this legislation is going to foster transparency. But it 
is going to bring about a great deal of accountability in health 
research and development and ensure that the scientific community and, 
most importantly, the general public whom we are trying to protect have 
access to basic information about clinical trials, about new drugs 
going out on the market.
  The legislation would also create an environment that would encourage 
companies from withholding clinically important information about their 
products from the Food and Drug Administration and from the public.
  By the way, the information that is coming out now about Vioxx in the 
newspapers today will even tell you that a long time before Vioxx went 
on the market there were scientists within the company who were raising 
questions about whether it was going to cause harm to the heart. All of 
this information should be out there. The public ought to know it. Your 
doctor ought to know it. Transparency and accountability should not 
hurt anybody in an open society such as we have in

[[Page S1455]]

America. Oh, there might be some legitimate reasons for intellectual 
property privacy, but nothing beyond that.
  If we have learned anything over the last few years, it is that the 
Food and Drug Administration is a troubled agency that lost sight of 
its fundamental function. That fundamental function is to protect the 
safety and the efficacy of new prescription drugs.
  Two very important things for them to answer: Are the drugs safe for 
you? Are they effective?
  Unfortunately, the public has good reason to doubt the Food and Drug 
Administration's ability to do its job. And experts from all over the 
country have expressed concern. These two bills, then, that Senator 
Dodd and I are introducing--and let me parenthetically say for the 
public, people are always thinking that Democrats are hitting on 
Republicans and Republicans are hitting on Democrats. There is a lot 
going on around here you never see on evening television that is 
bipartisan because there is not controversy about it, or at least there 
is no controversy between Republicans and Democrats. But what they want 
to put in the news media every night is when some Republican is 
fighting some Democrat. So our constituents get a view about this 
Congress that is very distorted.
  I would like to have people read on a regular basis about how Senator 
Baucus and I meet on a regular basis to determine the agenda for the 
Finance Committee. I would like to have them read about how he and I 
have put out bipartisan bills for the last 6 years--whether he was 
chairman or I was chairman--and that every one of them got to the 
President to be signed. But you do not hear those things.
  So I want to emphasize, this is a Dodd--and Senator Dodd is a 
Democrat from Connecticut--and a Grassley bill--and Grassley is a 
Republican Senator from Iowa. So this bill is being introduced to 
ensure the safety and efficacy of new prescription drugs, not to do 
something new for the FDA, just to give them the tools to do what they 
have had a responsibility to do for several decades.
  So the public has doubts about the FDA's ability to do it. These two 
bills will help put the FDA back on the path to fulfilling its mission 
and, most importantly, put the American consumer first.
  So, Madam President, in closing, I ask unanimous consent that my 
statement in the Record that I give today be coupled with the statement 
of Senator Dodd, which will be given later today, regarding the 
introduction of these important bills.
  By giving me this unanimous consent, it will assure the public, when 
they read about these bills, knows that Dodd is a Democrat, Grassley is 
a Republican, and they are bipartisan bills.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 468

       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 ``Food and Drug Administration 
     Safety Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. CENTER FOR POSTMARKET EVALUATION AND RESEARCH FOR 
                   DRUGS AND BIOLOGICS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter V of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 351 et seq.) is amended by inserting 
     after section 506C the following:

     ``SEC. 507. DRUG SAFETY.

       ``(a) Establishment of the Center for Postmarket Evaluation 
     and Research for Drugs and Biologics.--There is established 
     within the Food and Drug Administration a Center for 
     Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics 
     (referred to in the section as the `Center'). The Director of 
     the Center shall report directly to the Commissioner of Food 
     and Drugs.
       ``(b) Duties of the Center for Postmarket Evaluation and 
     Research for Drugs and Biologics.--
       ``(1) Responsibilities of director.--The Director of the 
     Center, in consultation with the Director of the Center for 
     Drug Evaluation and Research or the Director of the Center 
     for Biologics Evaluation and Research, as appropriate, 
     shall--
       ``(A) conduct postmarket risk assessment of drugs approved 
     under section 505 of this Act and of biological products 
     licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act;
       ``(B) conduct and improve postmarket surveillance of 
     approved drugs and licensed biological products using 
     postmarket surveillance programs and activities (including 
     MedWatch), risk-benefit analyses, adverse event reports, the 
     scientific literature, any clinical or observational studies 
     (including studies required under subsection (d) or (e)), and 
     any other resources that the Director of the Center 
     determines appropriate;
       ``(C) determine whether a study is required under 
     subsection (d) or (e) and consult with the sponsors of drugs 
     and biological products to ensure that such studies are 
     completed by the date, and according to the terms, specified 
     by the Director of the Center;
       ``(D) contract, or require the sponsor of an application or 
     the holder of an approved application or license to contract, 
     with the holders of domestic and international patient 
     databases to conduct epidemiologic and other observational 
     studies;
       ``(E) determine, based on postmarket surveillance programs 
     and activities (including MedWatch), risk-benefit analyses, 
     adverse event reports, the scientific literature, and any 
     clinical or observational studies (including studies required 
     under subsection (d) or (e)), and any other resources that 
     the Director of the Center determines appropriate, whether a 
     drug or biological product may present an unreasonable risk 
     to the health of patients or the general public, and take 
     corrective action if such an unreasonable risk may exist;
       ``(F) make information about the safety and effectiveness 
     of approved drugs and licensed biological products available 
     to the public and healthcare providers in a timely manner; 
     and
       ``(G) conduct other activities as the Director of the 
     Center determines appropriate to ensure the safety and 
     effectiveness of all drugs approved under section 505 and all 
     biological products licensed under section 351 of the Public 
     Health Service Act.
       ``(2) Determination of unreasonable risk.--In determining 
     whether a drug or biological product may present an 
     unreasonable risk to the health of patients or the general 
     public, the Director of the Center, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or 
     the Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and 
     Research, as appropriate, shall consider the risk in relation 
     to the known benefits of such drug or biological product.
       ``(c) Secretarial Authority.--
       ``(1) In general.--Approval of a drug under section 505 of 
     this Act or issuance of a license for a biological product 
     under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act may be 
     subject to the requirement that the sponsor conduct 1 or more 
     postmarket studies as described in subsection (d) or (e) of 
     this section, or other postmarket studies as required by the 
     Secretary, to validate the safety and effectiveness of the 
     drug or biological product.
       ``(2) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     `postmarket' means--
       ``(A) with respect to a drug, after approval of an 
     application under section 505; and
       ``(B) with respect to a biological product, after licensure 
     under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act.
       ``(d) Preapproval Review.--
       ``(1) Review of application.--
       ``(A) In general.--
       ``(i) Review.--At any time before a drug is approved under 
     section 505 of this Act or a biological product is licensed 
     under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, the 
     Director of the Center shall review the application (or 
     supplement to the application), and any analyses associated 
     with the application, of such drug or biological product.
       ``(ii) Effect of approval or licensure.--The approval of a 
     drug under section 505 or the licensure of a biological 
     product under such section 351 shall not affect the 
     continuation and completion of a review under clause (i).
       ``(B) Limitation.--In no case shall the review under 
     subparagraph (A) delay a decision with respect to an 
     application for a drug under section 505 of this Act or for a 
     biological product under section 351 of the Public Health 
     Service Act.
       ``(2) Result of review.--The Director of the Center may, 
     based on the review under paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) require that the sponsor of the application agree to 
     conduct 1 or more postmarket studies to determine the safety 
     or effectiveness of a drug or biological product, including 
     such safety or effectiveness as compared to other drugs or 
     biological products, to be completed by a date, and according 
     to the terms, specified by the Director of the Center; or
       ``(B) contract, or require the sponsor of the application 
     to contract, with a holder of a domestic or an international 
     patient database to conduct 1 or more epidemiologic or other 
     observational studies.
       ``(e) Postmarketing Studies of Drug Safety.--
       ``(1) In general.--At any time after a drug is approved 
     under section 505 of this Act or a biological product is 
     licensed under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, 
     the Director of the Center, may--
       ``(A) require that the holder of an approved application or 
     license conduct 1 or more studies to determine the safety or 
     effectiveness of such drug or biological product, including 
     such safety and effectiveness as compared to other drugs or 
     biological products, to be completed by a date, and according 
     to the terms, specified by such Director; or
       ``(B) contract, or require the holder of the approved 
     application or license to contract, with a holder of a 
     domestic or an international patient database to conduct 1 or 
     more epidemiologic or other observational studies.

[[Page S1456]]

       ``(2) Review of outstanding studies.--Not later than 90 
     days after the date of enactment of the Food and Drug 
     Administration Safety Act of 2007, the Director of the Center 
     shall--
       ``(A) review and publish a list in the Federal Register of 
     any postmarketing studies outstanding on the date of 
     enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Safety Act of 
     2007; and
       ``(B) as the Director determines appropriate, require the 
     sponsor of a study described in subparagraph (A) to conduct 
     such study under this subsection.
       ``(f) Publication of Progress Reports and Completed 
     Studies.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the Center shall require 
     that the sponsor of a study under subsection (d) or (e) 
     submit to the Secretary--
       ``(A) not less frequently than every 90 days, an up-to-date 
     report describing the progress of such study; and
       ``(B) upon the completion date of such study, the results 
     of such study.
       ``(2) Completion date.--For purposes of this section, the 
     completion date of such study shall be determined by the 
     Director of the Center.
       ``(g) Determinations by Director.--
       ``(1) Results of study.--The Director of the Center shall 
     determine, upon receipt of the results of a study required 
     under subsection (d) or (e)--
       ``(A) whether the drug or biological product studied may 
     present an unreasonable risk to the health of patients or the 
     general public; and
       ``(B) what, if any, corrective action under subsection (k) 
     shall be taken to protect patients and the public health.
       ``(2) Results of evidence.--The Director of the Center may, 
     at any time, based on the empirical evidence from postmarket 
     surveillance programs and activities (including MedWatch), 
     risk-benefit analyses, adverse event reports, the scientific 
     literature, any clinical or observational studies (including 
     studies required under subsection (d) or (e)), or any other 
     resources that the Director of the Center determines 
     appropriate--
       ``(A) make a determination that a drug or biological 
     product may present an unreasonable risk to the health of 
     patients or the general public; and
       ``(B) order a corrective action under subsection (k) be 
     taken to protect patients and the public health.
       ``(3) Required consultation and considerations.--Before 
     making a determination under paragraph (2), ordering a study 
     under subsection (d) or (e), or taking a corrective action 
     under subsection (k), the Director of the Center shall--
       ``(A) consult with the Director of the Center for Drug 
     Evaluation and Research or the Director of the Center for 
     Biologics Evaluation and Research, as appropriate; and
       ``(B) consider--
       ``(i) the benefit-to-risk profile of the drug or biological 
     product;
       ``(ii) the effect that a corrective action, or failure to 
     take corrective action, will have on the patient population 
     that relies on the drug or biological product; and
       ``(iii) the extent to which the drug or biological product 
     presents a meaningful therapeutic benefit as compared to 
     other available treatments.
       ``(h) Public Information.--Periodically, but not less often 
     than every 90 days, the Secretary shall make available to the 
     public, by publication in the Federal Register and posting on 
     an Internet website, the following information:
       ``(1) Studies required under subsection (d) or (e) 
     including--
       ``(A) the type of study;
       ``(B) the nature of the study;
       ``(C) the primary and secondary outcomes of the study;
       ``(D) the date the study was required under subsection (d) 
     or (e) or was agreed to by the sponsor;
       ``(E) the deadline for completion of the study; and
       ``(F) if the study has not been completed by the deadline 
     under subparagraph (E), a statement that explains why.
       ``(2) The periodic progress reports and results of 
     completed studies described under subsection (f).
       ``(3) Any determinations made by the Director of the Center 
     under subsection (g), including--
       ``(A) reasons for the determination, including factual 
     basis for such determination;
       ``(B) reference to supporting empirical data; and
       ``(C) an explanation that describes why contrary data is 
     insufficient.
       ``(i) Drug Advisory Committee.--The Drug Safety and Risk 
     Management Advisory Committee within the Center of the Food 
     and Drug Administration shall--
       ``(1) meet not less frequently than every 180 days; and
       ``(2) make recommendations to the Director of the Center 
     with respect to--
       ``(A) which drugs and biological products should be the 
     subject of a study under subsection (d) or (e);
       ``(B) the design and duration for studies under subsection 
     (d) or (e);
       ``(C) which drugs and biological products may present an 
     unreasonable risk to the health of patients or the general 
     public; and
       ``(D) appropriate corrective actions under subsection (k).
       ``(j) Penalties.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary determines, after 
     notice and opportunity for an informal hearing, that a 
     sponsor of a drug or biological product or other entity has 
     failed to complete a study required under subsection (d) or 
     (e) by the date or to the terms specified by the Secretary 
     under such subsection, the Secretary may order such sponsor 
     or other entity to--
       ``(A) complete the study in a specified time;
       ``(B) revise the study to comply with the terms specified 
     by the Secretary under subsection (d) or (e); or
       ``(C) pay a civil penalty.
       ``(2) Amount of penalties.--
       ``(A) In general.--The civil penalty ordered under 
     paragraph (1) shall be $250,000 for the first 30-day period 
     after the date specified by the Secretary that the study is 
     not completed, and shall double in amount for every 30-day 
     period thereafter that the study is not completed.
       ``(B) Limitation.--In no case shall a penalty under 
     subparagraph (A) exceed $2,000,000 for any 30-day period.
       ``(3) Notification of penalty.--The Secretary shall publish 
     in the Federal Register any civil penalty ordered under this 
     subsection.
       ``(k) Result of Determination.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the Director of the Center makes a 
     determination that a drug or biological product may present 
     an unreasonable risk to the health of patients or the general 
     public under subsection (g), such Director shall order a 
     corrective action, as described under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Corrective actions.--The corrective action described 
     under subsection (g)--
       ``(A) may include--
       ``(i) requiring a change to the drug or biological product 
     label by a date specified by the Director of the Center;
       ``(ii) modifying the approved indication of the drug or 
     biological product to restrict use to certain patients;
       ``(iii) placing restriction on the distribution of the drug 
     or biological product to ensure safe use;
       ``(iv) requiring the sponsor of the drug or biological 
     product or license to establish a patient registry;
       ``(v) requiring patients to sign a consent form prior to 
     receiving a prescription of the drug or biological product;
       ``(vi) requiring the sponsor to monitor sales and usage of 
     the drug or biological product to detect unsafe use;
       ``(vii) requiring patient or physician education; and
       ``(viii) requiring the establishment of a risk management 
     plan by the sponsor; and
       ``(B) shall include the requirements with respect to 
     promotional material under subsection (l)(1).
       ``(3) Penalties.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Secretary determines, after 
     notice and opportunity for an informal hearing, that a 
     sponsor of a drug or biological product has failed to take 
     the corrective action ordered by the Director of the Center 
     under this subsection or has failed to comply with subsection 
     (l)(2), the Secretary may order such sponsor to pay a civil 
     penalty.
       ``(B) Amount of penalties.--
       ``(i) In general.--The civil penalty ordered under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be $250,000 for the first 30-day 
     period that the sponsor does not comply with the order under 
     paragraph (1), and shall double in amount for every 30-day 
     period thereafter that the order is not complied with.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--In no case shall a penalty under clause 
     (i) exceed $2,000,000 for any 30-day period.
       ``(C) Notification of penalty.--The Secretary shall publish 
     in the Federal Register any civil penalty ordered under this 
     paragraph.
       ``(l) Promotion Material.--
       ``(1) Safety issue.--If the Director of the Center makes a 
     determination that a drug or biological product may present 
     an unreasonable risk to the health of patients or the general 
     public under subsection (g), such Director, in consultation 
     with the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and 
     Communications of the Food and Drug Administration, shall--
       ``(A) notwithstanding section 502(n), require that the 
     sponsor of such drug or biological product submit to the 
     Director of the Center copies of all promotional material 
     with respect to the drug or biological product not less than 
     30 days prior to the dissemination of such material; and
       ``(B) require that all promotional material with respect to 
     the drug or biological product include certain disclosures, 
     which shall be displayed prominently and in a manner easily 
     understood by the general public, including--
       ``(i) a statement that describes the unreasonable risk to 
     the health of patients or the general public as determined by 
     the Director of the Center;
       ``(ii) a statement that encourages patients to discuss 
     potential risks and benefits with their healthcare provider;
       ``(iii) a description of the corrective actions required 
     under subsection (k);
       ``(iv) where appropriate, a statement explaining that there 
     may be products available to treat the same disease or 
     condition that present a more favorable benefit-to-risk 
     profile, and that patients should talk to their healthcare 
     provider about the risks and benefits of alternative 
     treatments;

[[Page S1457]]

       ``(v) a description of any requirements of outstanding 
     clinical and observational studies, including the purpose of 
     each study; and
       ``(vi) contact information to report a suspected adverse 
     reaction.
       ``(2) New products; outstanding studies.--For the first 2-
     year period after a drug is approved under section 505 of 
     this Act or a biological product is licensed under section 
     351 of the Public Health Service Act, and with respect to 
     drugs and biological products for which there are outstanding 
     study requirements under subsection (d) or (e), the Director 
     of the Center, in consultation with the Division of Drug 
     Marketing, Advertising, and Communications of the Food and 
     Drug Administration, shall--
       ``(A) notwithstanding section 502(n), require that the 
     sponsor of such drug or biological product submit to the 
     Director of the Center copies of all promotional material 
     with respect to the drug or biological product not less than 
     30 days prior to the dissemination of such material; and
       ``(B) require that all promotional material with respect to 
     the drug or biological product include certain disclosures, 
     which shall be displayed prominently and in a manner easily 
     understood by the general public, including--
       ``(i) a statement explaining that the drug or biological 
     product is newly approved or licensed or the subject of 
     outstanding clinical or observational studies, as the case 
     may be, and, as a result, not all side effects or drug 
     interactions may be known;
       ``(ii) the number of people in which the drug or biological 
     product has been studied and the duration of time during 
     which the drug or biological product has been studied;
       ``(iii) a statement that encourages patients to discuss the 
     potential risks and benefits of treatment with their 
     healthcare provider;
       ``(iv) a description of any requirements of outstanding 
     clinical and observational studies, including the purpose of 
     each study; and
       ``(v) contact information to report a suspected adverse 
     reaction.
       ``(3) Effect of voluntary submission.--Paragraphs (1)(A) 
     and (2)(A) shall not apply to the sponsor of a drug or 
     biological product if such sponsor has voluntarily submitted 
     to the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and 
     Communications of the Food and Drug Administration all 
     promotional material with respect to the drug or biological 
     product prior to the dissemination of such material.
       ``(m) Withdrawal or Suspension of Approval or Licensure.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Director of the Center, may withdraw 
     or suspend approval of a drug or licensure of a biological 
     product using expedited procedures (as prescribed by the 
     Secretary in regulations promulgated not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of the Food and Drug 
     Administration Safety Act of 2007, which shall include an 
     opportunity for an informal hearing) after consultation with 
     the Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research 
     or the Director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and 
     Research, as appropriate, and any other person as determined 
     appropriate by the Director of the Center, if--
       ``(A) the Director of the Center makes a determination that 
     the drug or biological product may present an unreasonable 
     risk to the health of patients or the general public, and 
     that risk cannot be satisfactorily alleviated by a corrective 
     action under subsection (k); or
       ``(B) the sponsor fails to comply with an order or 
     requirement under this section.
       ``(2) Public information.--The Secretary shall make 
     available to the public, by publication in the Federal 
     Register and posting on an Internet website, the details of 
     the consultation described in paragraph (1), including--
       ``(A) the reason for the determination to withdraw, 
     suspend, or failure to withdraw or suspend, approval for the 
     drug or licensure for the biological product;
       ``(B) the factual basis for such determination;
       ``(C) reference to supporting empirical data;
       ``(D) an explanation that describes why contrary data is 
     insufficient; and
       ``(E) the position taken by each individual consulted.
       ``(n) Effect of Section.--The authorities conferred by this 
     section shall be separate from and in addition to the 
     authorities conferred by section 505B.
       ``(o) Administration of Section.--The provisions of this 
     section shall be carried out by the Secretary, acting through 
     the Director of the Center.''.
       (b) Misbranding.--Section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352) is amended by inserting 
     after subsection (j) the following:
       ``(k) If it is a drug or biological product for which the 
     sponsor of an application or holder of an approved 
     application or license has not complied with an order or 
     requirement under section 507.''.
       (c) Report on Devices.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Food 
     and Drugs, the Director of the Center for Postmarket 
     Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics, and the 
     Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 
     shall submit to Congress a report that--
       (1) identifies gaps in the current process of postmarket 
     surveillance of devices approved under the Federal Food, 
     Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321 et seq.);
       (2) includes recommendations on ways to improve gaps in 
     postmarket surveillance of devices; and
       (3) identifies the changes in authority needed to make 
     those improvements, recognizing the legitimate differences 
     between devices and other medical products regulated by the 
     Food and Drug Administration.
       (d) Transfer of Functions.--The functions and duties of the 
     Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology, including the Drug 
     Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, of the Food 
     and Drug Administration on the day before the date of 
     enactment of this Act shall be transferred to the Center for 
     Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics 
     established under section 507 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
     Cosmetic Act (as added by this section). The Center for 
     Postmarket Evaluation and Research for Drugs and Biologics 
     shall be a separate entity within the Food and Drug 
     Administration and shall not be an administrative office of 
     the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or the Center for 
     Biologics Evaluation and Research.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this Act (and the amendments 
     made by this Act)--
       (1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
       (2) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
       (3) $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
       (4) $125,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
       (5) $150,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Grassley):
  S. 469. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 
permanent the special rule for contributions of qualified conservation 
contributions; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural 
Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007, along with my good friend 
Senator Grassley from Iowa.
  As we all know, the country, and my home State of Montana, are losing 
precious agricultural and ranch lands at a record pace. While providing 
Montana and the Nation with the highest quality food and fiber, these 
farms and ranches also provide habitat for wildlife and the open 
spaces, land that many of us take for granted and assume will always be 
there. Montana has begun to recognize the importance of these lands. We 
currently have 1,573,411 acres covered by conservation easements. To 
some, that may seem like a large amount, but this is Montana, a State 
that covers 93,583,532 acres, making the conservation easements 
coverage a mere 1.68 percent of all of our lands.
  To assure that open space and habitat will be there for future 
generations, we must help our hardworking farmers and ranchers preserve 
this precious heritage and their way-of-life.
  Conservation easements have been tremendously successful in 
preserving open space and wildlife habitat. Last year, the Congress 
recognized this by providing targeted income tax relief to small 
farmers and ranchers who wish to make a charitable contribution of a 
qualified conservation easement. The provision allows eligible farmers 
and ranchers to increase the amounts of deduction that may be taken 
currently for charitable contributions of qualified conservation 
easements by raising the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limitations to 100 
percent and extending the carryover period from 5 years to 15 years. In 
the case of all landowners, the AGI limitation would be raised from 30 
percent to 50 percent.
  The Rural Heritage Conservation Extension Act of 2007 would make this 
allowable deduction permanent, building on the success of conservation 
easements. Our farmers and ranchers will be able to preserve their 
important agricultural and ranching lands for future generations, while 
continuing to operate their businesses. Landowners, conservationists, 
the Federal Government, and local communities are working together to 
preserve our precious natural resources.
  This legislation is vitally important to Montana, and to every other 
State in the Nation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 469

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

     SECTION 1. SPECIAL RULE FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF QUALIFIED 
                   CONSERVATION CONTRIBUTIONS MADE PERMANENT.

       (a) In General.--

[[Page S1458]]

       (1) Individuals.--Subparagraph (E) of section 170(b)(1) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to contributions 
     of qualified conservation contributions) is amended by 
     striking clause (vi).
       (2) Corporations.--Subparagraph (B) of section 170(b)(2) of 
     such Code (relating to qualified conservation contributions) 
     is amended by striking clause (iii).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made in taxable years beginning 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                          ____________________