Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 52 (Thursday, March 26, 2009)

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 52 (Thursday, March 26, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3899-S3932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 712. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve the Medicare program for beneficiaries residing in rural areas;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator
Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to address the needs
of the nearly one-quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries who live in
rural America. These beneficiaries are systematically disadvantaged in
the Medicare program. The beauty of Medicare is its equity, its
universality, and its accessibility. But we have compromised these
values by stratifying payments, by under-representing rural voices on
the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and by continuing to use
obsolete payment data that hurts rural America.
First, we must stop indexing physician payments for work based on
geographic differences. Rural areas already have a hard enough time
recruiting and retaining the Nation's top talent. Currently, even
though 25 percent of Medicare beneficiaries live in rural areas, only
10 percent of the nation's physicians serve them. Lower payments to
doctors in these areas only perpetuate this dangerous shortage of
medical expertise. We should not be discouraging medical school
graduates from moving to underserved rural areas by continuing to offer
sub-par pay--in fact, we should be providing incentives to encourage
them to work in underserved areas. My legislation proposes a project to
help rural facilities to host educators and clinical practitioners in
clinical rotations.
Lack of dollars to rural health facilities has also prevented
communities from investing in vital information technology. The
Institute of Medicine published a report in 2005 detailing the ways in
which health IT could assist isolated communities. For example, since
rural physicians tend to be generalists rather than specialists,
virtual libraries within physician offices would provide both doctors
and patients with a wider and deeper source of information at their
fingertips. Rural residents can also be quite far from health
facilities, so technology that allows emergency room physicians to
communicate with EMS workers in an ambulance can help patients receive
life-saving treatment before they physically reach the hospital. These
kinds of technologies will improve both the quality and efficiency of
care given in rural areas. My legislation offers funding for quality
improvement demonstration projects, to allow isolated communities to
invest in this otherwise out of reach technology.
Lastly, this legislation will end the disproportionately low
representation of rural interests on the Medicare Payment Advisory
Commission. This lack of representation has resulted in policies that
hurt rural communities. Those policies have hurt--and continue to
hurt--the people of my State of Wisconsin, and they hurt my colleague
Senator Collins' constituents as well. For every dollar that Medicare
spends on the average beneficiary in the average state in this country,
Medicare spends only 82 cents on a beneficiary in Wisconsin. In Maine,
Medicare spends only 80 cents per dollar it spends on the average
beneficiary.
How is this the case, if beneficiaries in Wisconsin and in Maine pay
the same payroll taxes as beneficiaries in other states? Because the
distribution of Medicare dollars among the 50 States is grossly unfair
to Wisconsin, and to much of the Upper Midwest. Wisconsinites pay
payroll taxes just like every American taxpayer, but the Medicare funds
we get in return are lower than those received in many other States.
With the guidance and support of people across my State who are
fighting for Medicare fairness, I am introducing this legislation to
address Medicare's discrimination against Wisconsin's seniors and
health care providers. My bill will decrease some of the inequitable
payments that harm rural areas. It will provide rural areas the help
they need to grow crucial health information technology infrastructure.
It will offer the necessary incentives to help attract the Nation's top
medical talent to underserved rural areas. It will mandate rural
representation on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Rural
seniors are already underserved in their communities; they should not
be underrepresented in Washington as well.
Rural Americans have worked hard and paid into the Medicare program
all their lives. In return, they deserve full access to the same
benefits as seniors throughout the country: their choice of highly
skilled physicians, use of the latest technologies, and a strong voice
representing their needs in Medicare policy.
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. 712

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 ``Rural
Medicare Equity Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Elimination of geographic physician work adjustment factor from
geographic indices used to adjust payments under the
physician fee schedule.
Sec. 3. Clinical rotation demonstration project.
Sec. 4. Medicare rural health care quality improvement demonstration
projects.
Sec. 5. Ensuring proportional representation of interests of rural
areas on the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.
Sec. 6. Implementation of GAO recommendations regarding geographic
adjustment indices under the Medicare physician fee
schedule.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF GEOGRAPHIC PHYSICIAN WORK ADJUSTMENT
FACTOR FROM GEOGRAPHIC INDICES USED TO ADJUST
PAYMENTS UNDER THE PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Variations in the geographic physician work adjustment
factors under section 1848(e) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395w-4(e)) result in inequity between localities in
payments under the Medicare physician fee schedule.
(2) Beneficiaries under the Medicare program that reside in
areas where such adjustment factors are high have relatively
more access to services that are paid based on such fee
schedule.
(3) There are a number of studies indicating that the
market for health care professionals has become nationalized
and historically low labor costs in rural and small urban
areas have disappeared.
(4) Elimination of the adjustment factors described in
paragraph (1) would equalize the reimbursement rate for
services reimbursed under the Medicare physician fee schedule
while remaining budget-neutral.
(b) Elimination.--Section 1848(e) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(e)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A)(iii), by striking ``an index'' and
inserting ``for services provided before January 1, 2010, an
index''; and

[[Page S3900]]

(2) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``, for services
provided before January 1, 2010,'' after ``paragraph (4)),
and''.
(c) Budget Neutrality Adjustment for Elimination of
Geographic Physician Work Adjustment Factor.--Section 1848(d)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(d)) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``The conversion'' and
inserting ``Subject to paragraph (10), the conversion''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Budget neutrality adjustment for elimination of
geographic physician work adjustment factor.--Before applying
an update for a year under this subsection, the Secretary
shall (if necessary) provide for an adjustment to the
conversion factor for that year to ensure that the aggregate
payments under this part in that year shall be equal to
aggregate payments that would have been made under such part
in that year if the amendments made by section 2(b) of the
Rural Medicare Equity Act of 2009 had not been enacted.''.

SEC. 3. CLINICAL ROTATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

(a) Establishment.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
demonstration project that provides for demonstration grants
designed to provide financial or other incentives to
hospitals to attract educators and clinical practitioners so
that hospitals that serve beneficiaries under the Medicare
program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) who are residents of underserved areas
may host clinical rotations.
(b) Duration of Project.--The demonstration project shall
be conducted over a 5-year period.
(c) Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive such provisions of
titles XI and XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1301 et seq. and 1395 et seq.) as may be necessary to conduct
the demonstration project under this section.
(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress interim reports on the demonstration
project and a final report on such project within 6 months
after the conclusion of the project, together with
recommendations for such legislation or administrative action
as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
(e) Funding.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the
Secretary to carry out this section, $20,000,000.
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Hospital.--The term ``hospital'' means a subsection (d)
hospital (as defined in section 1886(d)(1)(B) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(1)(B)) that had indirect or
direct costs of medical education during the most recent cost
reporting period preceding the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Health and Human Services.
(3) Underserved area.--The term ``underserved area'' means
such medically underserved urban areas and medically
underserved rural areas as the Secretary may specify.

SEC. 4. MEDICARE RURAL HEALTH CARE QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.

(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this section referred to as the ``Secretary'')
shall establish not more that 10 demonstration projects to
provide for improvements, as recommended by the Institute of
Medicine, in the quality of health care provided to
individuals residing in rural areas.
(2) Activities.--Activities under the projects may include
public health surveillance, emergency room videoconferencing,
virtual libraries, telemedicine, electronic health records,
data exchange networks, and any other activities determined
appropriate by the Secretary.
(3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with the
Office of Rural Health Policy of the Health Resources and
Services Administration, the Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
in carrying out the provisions of this section.
(b) Duration.--Each demonstration project under this
section shall be conducted over a 4-year period.
(c) Demonstration Project Sites.--The Secretary shall
ensure that the demonstration projects under this section are
conducted at a variety of sites representing the diversity of
rural communities in the United States.
(d) Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive such provisions of
titles XI and XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1301 et seq. and 1395 et seq.) as may be necessary to conduct
the demonstration projects under this section.
(e) Independent Evaluation.--The Secretary shall enter into
an arrangement with an entity that has experience working
directly with rural health systems for the conduct of an
independent evaluation of the demonstration projects
conducted under this section.
(f) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the appropriate
committees of Congress interim reports on each demonstration
project and a final report on such project within 6 months
after the conclusion of the project. Such reports shall
include recommendations regarding the expansion of the
project to other areas and recommendations for such other
legislative or administrative action as the Secretary
determines appropriate.
(g) Funding.--Out of any funds in the Treasury not
otherwise appropriated, there are appropriated to the
Secretary to carry out this section, $50,000,000.

SEC. 5. ENSURING PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OF INTERESTS OF
RURAL AREAS ON THE MEDICARE PAYMENT ADVISORY
COMMISSION.

(a) In General.--Section 1805(c)(2) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395b-6(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``consistent with
subparagraph (E)'' after ``rural representatives''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(E) Proportional representation of interests of rural
areas.--In order to provide a balance between urban and rural
representatives under subparagraph (A), the proportion of
members who represent the interests of health care providers
and Medicare beneficiaries located in rural areas shall be no
less than the proportion, of the total number of Medicare
beneficiaries, who reside in rural areas.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to appointments made to the Medicare
Payment Advisory Commission after the date of the enactment
of this Act.

SEC. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF GAO RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
GEOGRAPHIC ADJUSTMENT INDICES UNDER THE
MEDICARE PHYSICIAN FEE SCHEDULE.

Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall
implement the recommendations contained in the March 2005 GAO
report 05-119 entitled ``Medicare Physician Fees: Geographic
Adjustment Indices are Valid in Design, but Data and Methods
Need Refinement.''.
______

By Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Reid, Mr. Leahy, Mr.
Durbin, Mr. Graham, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Brown, Mr. Warner, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Burris, Mr. Kennedy,
Mr. Cardin, and Mrs. McCaskill):
S. 714. A bill to establish the National Criminal Justice Commission;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WEBB. Today I am pleased to be introducing a piece of legislation
designed to establish a national criminal justice commission. I do so
with, at the moment, 12 cosponsors, including our majority leader, the
chairman and the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee,
the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on
Crime and Drugs, and other members of our leadership. I introduce this
bill after more than 2 years of effort here in the Senate that I will
explain shortly; also with the prior conferral with Supreme Court
Justice Kennedy and having discussed this matter with the President and
the Attorney General, both of whom I think are strongly supportive of
this concept.
Our design, our goal in this legislation, is to create a national
commission with an 18-month timeline, not to simply talk about the
problems that we have in our criminal justice system but actually to
look at all of the elements in this system, how they are interrelated
in terms of the difficulties that we have in remedying issues of
criminal justice in this country, and to deliver us from a situation
that has evolved over time where we are putting far too many of the
wrong people into prison and we are still not feeling safer in our
neighborhoods; we are still not putting in prison or bringing to
justice those people who are perpetrating violence and criminality as a
way of life.
I would like to say that, although I am not on the Judiciary
Committee, I come to this issue as someone who first became interested
in criminal justice issues while I was serving as a U.S. marine,
serving on a number of courts-martial and thinking about the
interrelationship between discipline and fairness; then after that,
from having spent time as an attorney at one point representing, pro
bono, a young former marine who had been convicted of murder in
Vietnam. I represented him for 6 years pro bono. He took his life
halfway through this process. I cleared his name 3 years later, but I
became painfully aware of how sometimes inequities infect our process.
Prior to joining the Senate, I spent time as a journalist, including
a stint 25 years ago as the first American journalist to have been
inside the Japanese prison system, where I became aware of the systemic
difficulties and challenges

[[Page S3901]]

we have. At that time, 25 years ago, Japan was half our population, and
had only 40,000 sentenced prisoners in jail. We had 480,000. Today, we
have 2.38 million prisoners in our criminal justice system and another
5 million involved in the process, either due to probation or parole
situations.
This is a system that is very much in need of the right sort of
overarching examination. I do note the senior Senator from Pennsylvania
has joined me on the Senate floor. I am very gratified he has also
joined me as the lead Republican on this measure. I look forward to
hearing from him as soon as I am finished with my remarks.
The third thing I would like to say at the outset is, I believe very
strongly, even though we are a Federal body, that there is a compelling
national interest for us to examine this issue and reshape and reform
our criminal justice system at the Federal, State, and local levels. I
believe the commission I am going to present would provide us with that
opportunity.
I start with a premise I do think not a lot of Americans are aware
of. We have 5 percent of the world's population. We have 25 percent of
the world's known prison population. We have an incarceration rate in
the United States, the world's greatest democracy, that is five times
as high as the incarceration rate in the rest of the world.
There are only two possibilities. Either we have the most evil people
on Earth living in the United States or we are doing something
dramatically wrong in terms of how we approach the issue of criminal
justice. And I would ask my fellow Senators and my fellow citizens to
think about the challenges that attend these kind of numbers when we
are looking at people who have been released from prison and are
reentering American society.
We have hundreds and thousands of American people who are reentering
American society without the sort of transition that would allow a
great percentage of them to again become productive citizens.
I think we need to look at this in terms of our own history, our own
recent history. This is a chart that shows our incarceration rate from
1925 until today. Beginning in about 1980, our incarceration rate
started to skyrocket. What has happened since 1980 is not reflective of
where our own history has been on this issue. That is another need, why
we need to examine it fuller. We also, for a complex set of reasons,
are warehousing the mentally ill in our prisons. We now have four times
as many mentally ill people in our prisons than we do in mental
institutions. There are a complex set of reasons for that, but the main
point for all of us to consider is, these people who are in prison are
not receiving the kind of treatment they would need in order to remedy
the disabilities that have brought them to that situation.
Drug incarceration has sharply increased over the past three decades.
In 1980, we had 41,000 drug offenders in prison. Today we have more
than 500,000. That is an increase of 112 percent.
Those blue disks represent the numbers in 1980. The red disks
represent the numbers in 2007. A significant percent of these
individuals are incarcerated for possession or nonviolent drug
offenses, and in many cases, criminal offenses that stem from drug
addiction and those sorts of related behavioral issues.
African Americans are about 12 percent of our population. Contrary to
a lot of thought and rhetoric, their drug use, in terms of frequent
drug use rate, is about the same as all other elements of our society,
about 14 percent. But they end up being 37 percent of those arrested on
drug charges, 59 percent of those convicted, and 74 percent of those
sentenced to prison, by the numbers that have been provided to us and
to the Joint Economic Committee. This is a disturbing statistic for us.
I emphasize to my colleagues and to others that the issues we face with
respect to criminal justice are not overall racial issues. They involve
issues, in many cases, of how people are treated based on their ability
to have proper counsel and other issues like that. But this is a
statistic with respect to drugs that we all must come to terms with.
At the same time, I say we are putting too many of the wrong people
in prison, and we are not solving the problems that will bring safety
to our communities. Gangs are a hot issue today. I am on the Armed
Services Committee. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. There has
been a lot of back and forth in recent months about the transnational
gangs that are emanating across the Mexican border. Approximately 1
million gang members are currently in our country today. And I emphasis
this is not an issue that is simply existent along the Mexican border.
This is an issue that affects every community in the United States, and
it is not simply an issue with respect to the Mexican drug cartels,
although theirs are the most violent and the most visible today.
The Mexican drug cartels are operating in more than 230 American
cities, not simply along the border. The incidents along on the border
illuminate the largeness of this problem and of this challenge. Gangs
in many areas of the United States commit 80 percent of the crimes.
They are heavily involved in drug distribution, but they are involved
in other violent activities as well.
There has been some talk over the past few days about how our
position toward drugs and our gun policies feed this problem. I would
ask my colleagues to think very hard about that. Drugs are a demand-
pull problem in the United States, there is no question about that.
There are a lot of weapons that are going back and forth across the
border. But we should remember the Mexican drug cartels are capable of
very sophisticated levels of quasi-military violence.
Many of the members who are brought into the gangs by the drug
cartels are former Mexican military. Some of them have been trained by
our own special forces, and the weapons they use are not the kind of
weapons you are going to buy at a gun show. You do not get automatic
weapons, RPGs, and grenades at a gun show.
We have to realize these cartels have a lot of money. By some
indications they make profit levels of about $25 billion a year. They
can buy the weapons they want. We have to get on top of this as a
national priority. Again, it is not simply the transnational gangs that
come out of Mexico. Many of them are Central American.
In Northern Virginia, right across the Potomac River, we have
thousands of members who belong to the MS-13 gangs emanating out of
Central America, who are very active up the I-95 corridor. There are
Asian gangs. We have to get our arms around this problem as we address
the other problem of mass incarceration in the United States.
Another piece of this issue I hope we will be able to address with
this national criminal justice commission is what happens inside our
prisons. When I was looking at the Japanese system many years ago,
their model in terms of prison administration was basically designed
after a traditional military model. You could not be a warden in a
Japanese jail unless you started as a turnkey. They had national
examinations. They had a year of preparation, training in psychology,
in counseling techniques, before an individual was allowed to be a
turnkey in a jail. The promotion systems were internal, like the U.S.
military. It provided a quality career path, and it brought highly
trained people in at the very beginning.
We do not have that in America. Prisons vary warden to warden; they
vary locality to locality. We need to examine a better way to do that
in our country.
We also have a situation in this country with respect to prison
violence and sexual victimization that is off the charts. We must get
our arms around this problem.
We also have many people in our prisons who are among what are called
the criminally ill, people who are suffering from hepatitis and HIV who
are not getting the sorts of treatment they deserve.
I started, once I arrived in the Senate, working on this issue. I was
pleased to be working with Senator Schumer on the Joint Economic
Committee. He allowed me to chair hearings to try to get our arms
around this problem and see what sort of legislative approach might
help. I chaired a hearing on mass incarceration in October of 2007. I
chaired another hearing last year on the overall impact of illegal
drugs from point of origin through the criminal justice system. How
does this work in terms of the underground

[[Page S3902]]

business environment? How does it work in terms of the disparity in
treatment of people who end up incarcerated? How does it affect
people's long-term lives? What are the costs associated with it?
I was able to work with the George Mason University Law Center to put
together a forum bringing people in from across the country to talk
about our overall drug policy. Once we started talking about this,
particularly over the last year, we started being contacted by people
all across the country, people from every different aspect of the
political and the philosophical areas that come into play when we talk
about incarceration. It is a very emotional issue.
As I said, I heard from Justice Kennedy at the Supreme Court. I have
heard from prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, former offenders,
people in prison, police on the street. All of them are saying we have
a mess; we have a mess. We have to get a holistic view of how to solve
it. There are many good pieces of legislation that have been introduced
in the Congress to deal with different pieces of this issue. But after
going through this process over the past year, I have come to the
conclusion that the way we should address this is with a national
commission that will examine all of these pieces together and make
specific findings so we can turn it around.
These are examples of some of the editorial support that we have
received. I have written a piece for Parade magazine which will be out
this weekend to summarize the challenges we have; I hope our fellow
citizens will take a look at it.
As to the design of this legislation, we are looking for two things.
One is to shape a commission with bipartisan balance: the President
nominating the chairman; the majority and minority leaders in the
Senate, in consultation with the Judiciary Committee, each nominating
two members; the Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader, in
concert with the Judiciary Committee, each nominating two members; and
the National Governors Association, Republican and Democrat, each
getting one member. The idea is not to have a group of people who are
going to sit around and simply remonstrate about the problem. It is to
get a group of people with credibility and wide expertise to examine
specific findings and to come up with policy recommendations on an 18-
month time period.
This commission will be asked to investigate the reasons in our own
history that we have seen this incredible increase in incarceration.
What do other countries do, particularly countries that have the same
basic governmental systems we do? How do they handle comparable types
of crime? What should we do about prison administration policies,
prison management? How can we bring more quality, stability, and
predictability in terms of the prison environment itself? What are the
costs of our current incarceration policies, not only in terms of the
billions of dollars we spend on building prisons or the billions we
spend on housing people in prisons but also in terms of lost
opportunities with our post-prison systems, and how we can better
manage that area. What is the impact of gang activities, including
these transnational gangs, and how should we approach that issue, not
simply in terms of incarceration but as a nation that is under duress
from not being able to respond properly? Importantly, what are we going
to do about drug policy, the whole area of drug policy, and how does
that affect sentencing procedures and other alternatives we might look
at? We need to examine the policies as they relate to the mentally ill.
We should look at the historical role of the military when it comes to
how we are approaching these cross-border situations, particularly on
the Mexican border. Finally, importantly, any other area the Commission
deems relevant.
This is our best effort, after 2 years of coming up with the universe
of issues that need to be examined. There are many people, including
the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, who have worked on these areas
for a number of years. If they have specific findings they believe the
Commission should review, we are very happy to accommodate that.
The first step for the commission would be to give us findings,
factual findings. From those findings, then give us recommendations for
policy changes. The same areas I addressed in terms of findings apply
in terms of the policy recommendations: How we can refocus our
incarceration policies, work toward properly reducing the incarceration
rate in fair, cost-effective ways that still protect communities; how
we should address the issue of prison violence in all forms; how we can
improve prison administration; how we can establish meaningful reentry
programs. I believe with the high volume of people coming out of
prisons, we must, on a national level, assist local and State
communities in figuring out a way to transition these people so those
former offenders who are not going to become recidivists will have a
true pathway to get away from the stigma of incarceration and move into
a productive future.
Again, importantly, the last category, any other aspect of the system
the Commission or the people participating in it determine necessary.
This is our approach. I am gratified to have had as initial
cosponsors six members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including the
chairman, Senator Leahy; the ranking Republican, Senator Specter; the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, Senator Durbin; the
ranking Republican on that subcommittee, Senator Graham; and a number
of others, including key Democratic leadership--most importantly, our
leader.
I hope we can get this legislation done this year. This is an issue
that does not percolate up in the same way. It doesn't have a
programmatic element to it in many cases, but it is an issue that
threatens every community and begs for the notion of fairness.
I see the senior Senator from Pennsylvania is on the floor. I greatly
admire the work he has done in this area over many years, and I
appreciate his support on this endeavor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I begin by complimenting my distinguished colleague from
Virginia for his initiative in proposing the creation of a national
commission to examine criminal justice. There have been many
Commissions in recent years, recent decades. But the problems which we
are now confronting warrant a fresh look. Senator Webb has proposed
that. This Commission has the potential to be not just another
Commission but to make some very significant advances on this very
serious problem.
The principal issue on crime is public security, protection from
violent criminals. I have long believed the issue could be divided into
two parts. One is the violent career criminals. They are defined as
someone who has committed three or more serious crimes. One of the
first bills which I authored was the armed career criminal bill, which
was enacted in 1984, which made it a Federal offense punishable by what
is the equivalent of a life sentence under the Federal system, 15 years
to life, for anyone caught in possession of a firearm who has committed
three or more offenses--a robbery, burglary, rape, arson or the sale of
drugs. Statistics show that about 70 percent of violent crimes are
committed by career criminals. It is my view, shared by many, that
those people ought to be sent to jail for life. They ought to be
separated from society. The second category involves those who have
been convicted of crimes and who are going to be released. With respect
to juveniles, we call that juvenile delinquency, at least in
Pennsylvania we do, as opposed to a criminal charge. They are going to
be released. First and second offenders are going to be released. The
object is, how do we deal with them to, No. 1, protect society and, No.
2, to take them out of the crime cycle so they can have productive,
contributing lives in society? We know what to do, but we have never
done it. The steps are to work with those who suffer from drug abuse or
alcohol abuse. We find that 70 to 80 percent of the people arrested
have drug or alcohol problems. They have to be treated, detoxification.
Then they need literacy training. So many cannot read or write. Then
they need job training so they will have a trade or skill. Then they
need to be placed in society.
It is no surprise, when someone who is a functional illiterate,
without a trade or skill, gets out of jail, that the

[[Page S3903]]

odds are high they will go back to jail. There are a number of programs
but not enough, not sufficiently carefully thought through, to place
people. We have tax credits which will encourage employers to hire
people. In the stimulus package for veterans or juvenile offenders,
there is a 40-percent tax break on the first $6,000 of a job which is
paid. That is a start. But it doesn't go very far. We have been
unwilling to make the kind of investment to provide that kind of
realistic rehabilitation. Therefore, we have recidivism and the
revolving door in our jails. The public is the principal loser because
these people come out and commit more crimes. Individuals are lost. So
both in terms of the individual on rehabilitation, to have a productive
role in society, a decent life, and for public safety. Candidly, you
don't get too far on legislation looking out for the criminals on
rehabilitation. But when you talk about the threat to society from
repeat crimes, then people pick up their ears.
There has been a fascinating debate recently about whether we can
afford to have a criminal justice system that keeps people in jail and
protects the public, whether we can afford to have the death penalty
imposed. Is it too expensive to undertake the litigation process for
society. I do not think we can make a decision on public safety based
upon cost. Security is the basic purpose, fundamental first purpose of
Government. National security on the international scene, protection
from attacks; now we have a new form of security in terrorism. When we
come to the domestic scene, it is a matter of having safety on the
streets. There is a debate as to whether we ought to have the death
penalty. That is a worthwhile debate. The Supreme Court has been moving
in a number of areas to limit the application of the death penalty.
From my experience as district attorney of Philadelphia, I believe
the death penalty is a deterrent. I questioned FBI Director Mueller
about it yesterday in the Judiciary oversight hearing. Director Mueller
thinks the death penalty ought to be retained.
When I was an assistant DA many years ago, I had a case in the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court when I was chief of the appeals division.
There were three young hoodlums, Williams, Caters, and Rivers. They
were 19, 18, and 17. They planned a robbery. The two younger ones,
Cater and Rivers, said to Williams, who had a gun: We are not going if
you take the gun along. They had IQs under 100 but were smart enough to
know that if a gun was taken, there might be a killing. That would be
felony murder and they could get the death penalty. Williams said: I
won't take the gun. He put it in the drawer, slammed it shut. Then,
unbeknownst to Cater and Rivers, he took the gun back, put it in his
pocket, went to rob a grocer in north Philadelphia, a tussle ensued.
Williams pulled the gun and shot and killed a man named Viner. All
three were sentenced to death in the electric chair. Williams actually
was executed. This goes back to about 1960. Cater and Rivers got a life
sentence.
I argued the case in the State Supreme Court which upheld the death
penalties and then later, when I was district attorney, I joined in the
recommendation of a life sentence for Cater and Rivers. The point is
that even with a marginal IQ, there was a deterrent effect. The
critical factor in my thinking on their not having the death penalty
was they didn't want to take the weapon. In the eyes of the law, they
were as guilty as Williams. They were coconspirators. When you rob and
a killing ensues, a murder ensues, it is murder in the first degree and
calls for the death penalty.
The commission which has been proposed here today ought to take a
look at white-collar crime, and ought to make an evaluation of the
sentencing which has been imposed and whether it is adequate. If you
are dealing with a domestic quarrel, a husband-wife dispute--there are
many homicides arising in that context--a jail sentence is not a
deterrent. If you are dealing with white-collar crime, there is a
deterrent.
Today, we have--and I questioned FBI Director Mueller about this
yesterday. He said they have many investigations being undertaken as a
result of what has happened with corporate fraud, the misrepresentation
of assets, leading us to the tremendous economic problems which we face
today. There is no doubt about the deterrent effect. I urged Director
Mueller to expedite some of the cases.
There is great public concern about whether there will be
accountability. I said yesterday--and repeat to--we do not want to send
anybody to jail who does not deserve to go to jail, but you do not have
to investigate a case for years and bring forth 100 charges, 100 counts
of an indictment. It can be done on a much more rapid pace and have an
appropriate trial and have a result, and it would be important to show
the example and to show the American people there is accountability.
When we talk about the jails, the commission ought to make a
determination as to whether there are people in jail who ought not to
be in jail. This morning's news has a report about the State of New
York reexamining sentencing on drug laws. There is a lot of thought
that the drug laws catch too many people, and many people go to jail
who ought not to be in jail. Well, that is a question that ought to be
examined.
Our whole prison system in Pennsylvania is called a correctional
system, which is a misnomer. It does not correct people. It does not
have the facilities to correct people. What they do is warehouse.
A related issue that considerable work has been done on recently is
the issue of mentoring. We have some 80,000 at-risk youth in the city
of Philadelphia, determined by a hearing which was held recently. Those
at-risk youth can go one of two ways: They can move through the
education system, if they have proper guidance; or they can be on the
streets and turn into criminals, as so many of them do.
Mentoring is a way of providing some guidance. There are so many
single-parent homes--a working mother, nobody to give guidance. We have
appropriated federally, recently, $25 million nationally for five
target cities, one of which is Philadelphia, but that is a very modest
beginning. But to be a surrogate parent, you have an opportunity. That
is a subject which a commission ought to undertake.
Those are some of the ideas which are current in this very complex
field. In trying to estimate the cost of crime, it is hard to do. My
own judgment would be, if you put a billion-dollar price figure on the
cost of robberies, burglaries, corporate fraud, automobile thefts, to
say nothing about the pain and suffering people have--the anxiety in
the middle of the night when there is a loud noise in your house; the
consolation you have, to some extent, from an alarm system that does
not go too far--but this is a big problem in America, and it is a
problem which has largely gone unsolved.
Problems of crime are the same today as they were when I first
entered the field as an assistant district attorney decades ago. There
are ways to deal with violent crime. There are ways to deal with
realistic rehabilitation. There are ways to deal with deterrence on
white-collar crime--that it ought not to be only a fine, which turns
out to be a license to do business. In the confirmation hearing of the
new Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, that point
was emphasized.
But what Senator Webb has had to say today, and the blueprint he has
outlined, could be a major advance on a very complex problem, which
needs a--I was about to say ``solution,'' but there is not going to be
a solution--but there can be an enormous amelioration if we tackle the
problem with the guidance that could be provided by the Webb
commission. May I give it the name: The Webb commission? Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WEBB. I wish to express my appreciation to the senior Senator
from Pennsylvania for joining me on this legislation and in this
endeavor because it will be an endeavor, as the Senator knows, well
beyond the legislative approval of the commission. I think this is
going to take years. But I wish to express my appreciation for that,
for his comments today, and for all the work he has done in this field.
I wish to emphasize a couple of things, in reaction to what the
Senator mentioned. I agree. I do believe we can

[[Page S3904]]

meaningfully address this problem. And ``solution'' is perhaps a more
illusive word. But we can certainly meaningfully address this problem.
I think it is very important to say that it is in the interest of every
American we do so.
There are a lot of people who will look at this and talk about
specific elements of who has committed a crime and whether you should
do the time and these sorts of things, but we do need to sort it out.
When we have 5 percent of the world's population and 25 percent of the
world's prison population, there are better ways. When we still have
public safety issues in every community because of gang violence, and
particularly transnational gang violence at this moment, there are
better ways.
That is the purpose of having a commission: getting the greatest
minds in this area in the country together, with a specific timeline,
to bring us specific findings and recommendations for the entire gamut
of criminal justice in the country--not simply incarceration, not
simply gang violence, not simply reentry--but all of those and other
issues together, so we can have a much needed and long overdue
restructuring of how we address the issue of crime in this country.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator Kennedy be added as an original
cosponsor on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
______

By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Stabenow, Ms. Collins,
and Mr. Schumer):
S. 715. A bill to establish a pilot program to provide for the
preservation and rehabilitation of historic lighthouses; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, with Senators Snowe, Stabenow,
Collins and Schumer, I introduce The National Lighthouse Stewardship
Act. This legislation creates a three-year competitive grant program at
the Department of the Interior that will help to pay for the
preservation and rehabilitation of historic lighthouses in Michigan and
across the country. The grants will help nonprofit organizations, which
serve as caretakers for these historic landmarks, to help them preserve
and rehabilitate the historic lighthouses and keep them accessible to
the public.
This legislation complements a bill that was enacted in October 2000,
the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act, which I joined Sen.
Frank Murkowski in offering. With the Coast Guard getting out of the
lighthouse business, the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act
helped facilitate the process of transferring historic lighthouses from
the government to non-profit historical organizations who would take
over the responsibility for their care. It established an expedited
process through the Government Services Agency to help ease lighthouse
transfers by helping to cut through the bureaucratic red tape. As a
result of the law, 46 lighthouses to date--9 in Michigan--have been
transferred to custodians who will preserve them and keep them
accessible to the public.
Many of these lighthouse structures are in need of significant repair
and rehabilitation, which is now the responsibility of their nonprofit
custodians. Unfortunately, after obtaining custody of the lighthouses,
many of the nonprofit organizations have struggled to raise the funds
to adequately restore and maintain the lighthouses. To address this
problem our legislation establishes a pilot program that would enable
state and nonprofit groups to apply for competitive grants to help with
restoration and maintenance efforts. This pilot program would authorize
the secretary to distribute $20 million a year for 3 years.
Funding for Lighthouse restoration is important to Michigan and to
the Nation's historic preservation efforts. There are approximately 740
lighthouses in 31 coastal states. Michigan alone has over 120
lighthouses, more than any other State. They draw thousands of visitors
to Michigan and other States each year and create jobs throughout our
States. Michigan's and the Nation's lighthouses are national treasures
that beautify our shorelines. These historic lighthouses are part of
our Nation's rich maritime heritage. The grants are needed to help
nonprofit organizations, which serve as caretakers for the historic
landmarks, to maintain the beauty of the lighthouses and keep them
accessible to the public.
My office worked closely with lighthouse preservation groups in
drafting this legislation. The Michigan Lighthouse Fund in my home
state was invaluable in providing information on the needs of our
Nation's lighthouses. This week in Washington, the American Lighthouse
Coordinating Committee is meeting to coincide with the introduction of
this act. These funds are desperately needed by these groups who work
tirelessly to preserve our Nation's maritime heritage.
This funding would help ensure our lighthouses remain cultural
beacons for generations to come. America's lighthouses are national
treasures that we cannot let deteriorate to the point beyond repair. I
hope my colleagues will support the swift enactment of the National
Lighthouse Stewardship Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be placed in
the Record, as follows:

American Lighthouse

Coordinating Committee,

Evanston, IL, March 26, 2009.
Members of the United States Senate: I'm writing to urge
your support of the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act of
2009 as introduced by Senators Levin and Stabenow (MI), and
Snowe (ME).
Since passage of the National Lighthouse Preservation Act
of 2000, responsibility for management of many historic
lighthouses has been transferred from the US Coast Guard to
the public sector. While these facilities remain the property
of the federal government, the cost for their preservation
and programming is borne by local government and nonprofit
organizations with very limited economic resources. As a
result, these agencies require assistance in meeting the
demands of maintaining historic lighthouses so that they are
safe and accessible. The proposed National Lighthouse
Stewardship Act of 2009 recognizes the important role of this
new generation of administrative organizations in properly
managing these facilities. And, it provides a means by which
some dedicated funding is made available from the US
Government to support projects that will maintain structural
integrity.
Since this transfer program began, historic lighthouses
still brighten our lives and are now adaptively used for many
different purposes that include museums and centers of
education for the interpretation of U.S. maritime history; as
facilities to aid in environmental research of oceans and
Great Lakes; and to promote local and regional tourism. This
has resulted in an overwhelmingly positive public response
and is testimony to Americans' desire to preserve and use
these built resources.
Passage of the National Lighthouse Stewardship Act of 2009
is essential to the continued success of this federal
transfer program and mirrors public sentiment for the
preservation of historic lighthouse properties to benefit
public interests.
The American Lighthouse Coordinating Committee (ALCC) is a
consortium of organizations and individuals across the United
States that actively engage in the operation of historic
lighthouse properties and which strongly supports adoption of
this legislation.
Respectfully submitted, this 26th day of March 2009.
Donald J. Terras,
President.
____

Michigan Lighthouse Alliance,

March 20, 2009.
Senator Carl Levin,
Russell Office Building,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Levin: We are writing to you in support of
your bill to redirect the nominal port fees towards
lighthouse restoration grant programs. The amount of money
your office has identified that could be coming to those of
us on the front lines of the restoration effort would make a
huge difference in the quality of our work.
Most lighthouses are located in out of the way places. As
such, the number of people living around these remote
structures is limited, and thus the local funding available
for work is limited. It is difficult to keep the numbers of
volunteers and find resources for materials in such a
challenging situation.
But to see a large increase in the available grant funds
not only in our home state of Michigan, but throughout the
US, would surely help us get these wonderful icons of our
collective maritime history restored and ready for the next
generations to learn from and support as well. Being able to
attract the next generations of stewards is a constant
subject of conversation in our circles, and having sufficient
funding available to make this volunteer effort attractive
would really help out.
In addition, MLA would like to make a request. As you know
things are very tight in our state budget now, and it would
be extremely helpful for us if a small part of our state
allocation could go towards a full time MLA staff person who
could support the grant program by visiting our members and

[[Page S3905]]

reaching out with education on how to fill out the grant
requests, and other technical support. Right now our Alliance
is all volunteer as well, and we love what we do, but often
lament the loss of the staff person we had at MI SHPO. As the
representative voice now for all of Michigan's lighthouse
groups, we can be much more supportive and effective if we
had funding for a full time staffer.
Thank you as always for all you have done to advance the
lighthouse movement in Michigan and throughout the country.
You can count on the MLA and it's dozens of member groups and
their volunteers to be behind you on this bill, just ask for
what help you need!
Sincerely,
Buzz Hoerr, President, Harbor Beach Lighthouse
Preservation; Lou Schillinger, Vice President, Port
Austin Reef Light Association; Sally Frye, Sec'y/
Treasurer, Fox Point Lighthouse Association; Ann Method
Green, DeTour Reef Light Preservation Society; John
Gronberg, Holland Harbor Lighthouse Historical
Commission; Dick Moehl, Great Lakes Lightkeepers
Association; Jeff Shook, Michigan Lighthouse
Conservancy; Susan Skibbe, Thunder Bay Island; Gail
Vander Stoep, Michigan State University.

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the National
Lighthouse Stewardship Act, which will create a 3-year competitive
grant program to be administered by the Department of the Interior that
will help preserve and rehabilitate historic lighthouses across the
country.
In my State of Maine, we are lucky to be home to 83 lighthouses.
Further, there are approximately 740 lighthouses in 31 other States.
The Coast Guard has not traditionally had the resources to maintain the
lighthouses which are now being transferred under the National
Lighthouse Preservation Act from Federal ownership to non-profit
historical societies who have taken on the responsibility. Helping to
provide the resources necessary to ensure these lighthouses are not
lost would be a boost to both tourism and jobs. Failure to do so would
potentially harm not only the existence of an historic emblem of my
State and our Nation--but also a key economic catalyst for tourism that
is part and parcel of my home State and the livelihood of many of her
citizens.
Each lighthouse tells a different story and each one is as integral
to the history and narrative of our State as the magnificent landscapes
on which they proudly stand. That is why in 1995, I introduced a bill
that would later become law to establish the Maine Lights Program. We
succeeded in preserving this significant component of American heritage
through collaboration among the Federal Government, the State of Maine,
local communities, and private organizations, while at the same time,
relieving what had become a costly strain on the U.S. Coast Guard.
Across the country, responsibility for the care of our lighthouses
has been assumed by non-profit historic societies--many of which are
struggling in these uncertain economic times. This bill would authorize
$20 million for a three-year competitive grant pilot program that would
provide grants to stewards of historic lighthouses to help them
preserve and rehabilitate the lighthouses under their care.
I believe that the essential word in my previous sentence is
``stewards''--because the structures are still federally owned
property. It is not private property; it is not city or town property,
or even state property; but federal property. It is also imperative to
note that these lighthouses are operable aids to navigation.
Lighthouses may seem a quaint relic of a bygone era, however they are
not. Daily, lighthouses lead our nation's mariners and fishermen away
from danger.
Given that the maintenance of lighthouses is now being transferred
under the National Lighthouse Preservation Act from Federal ownership
to non-profit historical societies, the task of providing the required
resources to ensure the longevity and viability of these lighthouses
would also represent a welcomed economic boost both to tourism and to
job creation.
The fact is, tourism has become increasingly crucial to Maine's
economy, as manufacturing jobs have fled our State, not to mention our
Nation. In fact, in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are
available, approximately 1/5 of State sales tax revenues were
attributable to tourism, and, when income and fuel taxes are added, the
Maine State government collected $429 million tourism-related tax
dollars in that year.
The Maine State Planning Office, which has quantified more precisely
the pivotal role tourism plays in the Maine economy, found that in
2006, tourism generated $10 billion in sales of goods and services,
140,000 jobs, and $3 billion in earnings. Tourism accounts for one in
five dollars of sales throughout Maine's economy and supported the
equivalent of one in six Maine jobs. The planning office also
discovered that an estimated 10 million overnight trips and 30 million
day trips were taken that year in Maine, with travelers spending nearly
$1 billion on lodging, $3 billion on food, and $1 billion on
recreational activities.
But those statistics are from 3 years ago . . . before the economy
began to unravel at an accelerating rate, and so given these economic
times confronting all of us, the financial necessity of our
lighthouses, especially to tourism, has grown, not dissipated.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill and send a message not only
that historic preservation of our Nation's prominent buildings and
structures--like our lighthouses--continues to be in the national
interest, but also that tourism--especially international tourism--is
an industry we should be striving to support as a key component of
reviving our ailing economy.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 717. A bill to modernize cancer research, increase access to
preventative cancer services, provide cancer treatment and survivorship
initiatives, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 37 years ago, a Republican President and
Democratic Congress came together in a new commitment to find a cure
for cancer. At the time, a cancer diagnosis meant almost certain death.
In 1971, we took action against this deadly disease and passed the
National Cancer Act with broad bipartisan support, and it marked the
beginning of the War on Cancer.
Since then, significant progress has been made. Amazing scientific
research has led to methods to prevent cancer, and treatments that give
us more beneficial and humane ways to deal with the illness. The
discoveries of basic research, the use of large scale clinical trials,
the development of new drugs, and the special focus on prevention and
early detection have led to breakthroughs unimaginable only a
generation ago.
As a result, cancer today is no longer the automatic death sentence
that it was when the war began. But despite the advances we have made
against cancer, other changes such as aging of the population, emerging
environmental issues, and unhealthy behavior, have allowed cancer to
persist. The lives of vast numbers of Americans have been touched by
the disease. In 2008, over 1.4 million Americans were diagnosed with
some form of cancer, and more than half a million lost their lives to
the disease.
The solution is not easy but there are steps we can and must take
now, if we hope to see the diagnosis rate decline substantially and the
survival rate increase in the years ahead. The immediate challenge we
face is to reduce the barriers that obstruct progress in cancer
research and treatment by integrating our current fragmented and
piecemeal system of addressing the disease.
Last year, my colleague Senator Hutchison and I agreed that to build
on what the nation has accomplished, we must launch a new and more
urgent war on cancer. The 21st Century Cancer ALERT Act we are
introducing today will accelerate our progress by using a better
approach to fighting this relentless disease. Our goal is to break down
the many barriers that impede cancer research and prevent patients from
obtaining the treatment that can save their lives.
We must do more to prevent cancer, by emphasizing scientifically
proven methods such as tobacco cessation, healthy eating, and exercise.
Healthy families and communities that have access to nutritious foods
and high quality preventive health care will be our best defense
against the disease. I

[[Page S3906]]

am confident that swift action on national health reform will make our
vision of a healthier Nation a reality. Obviously, we cannot prevent
all cancers, so it is also essential that the cancers that do arise be
diagnosed at an initial, curable stage, with all Americans receiving
the best possible care to achieve that goal.
We cannot overemphasize the value of the rigorous scientific efforts
that have produced the progress we have made so far. To enhance these
efforts, our bill invests in two key aspects of cancer research--
infrastructure and collaboration of the researchers. We include
programs that will bring resources to the types of cancer we least
understand. We invest in scientists who are committed to translating
basic research into clinical practice, so that new knowledge will be
brought to the patients who will most benefit from it.
One of the most promising new breakthroughs is in identifying and
monitoring the biomarkers that leave enough evidence in the body to
alert clinicians to subtle signs that cancer may be developing.
Biomarkers are the new frontier for improving the lives of cancer
patients because they can lead to the earliest possible detection of
cancer, and the Cancer ALERT Act will support the development of this
revolutionary biomarker technology.
In addition, we give new focus to clinical trials, which have been
the cornerstones of our progress in treating cancer in recent decades.
Only through clinical trials are we able to discover which treatments
truly work. Today, however, less than 5 percent of cancer patients
currently are enrolled in clinical trials, because of the many barriers
exist that prevent both providers and patients from participating in
these trials. A primary goal of our bill is to begin removing these
barriers and expanding access to clinical trials for many more
patients.
Further, since many cancer survivors are now living longer lives, our
health systems must be able to accommodate these men and women who are
successfully fighting against this deadly disease. It is imperative for
health professionals to have the support they need to care for these
survivors. To bring good lifelong care to cancer survivors, we must
invest more in research to understand the later effects of cancer and
how treatments affect survivors' health and the quality of their lives.
We stand today on the threshold of unprecedented new advances in this
era of extraordinary discoveries in the life sciences, especially in
personalized medicine, early diagnosis of cancer at the molecular
level, and astonishing new treatments based on a patient's own DNA. To
make the remarkable promise of this new era a reality, we must make
sure that patients can take DNA tests, free of the fear that their
genetic information will somehow be used to discriminate against them.
We took a major step toward unlocking the potential of this new era by
approving strong protections against genetic discrimination in health
insurance and employment when the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act was
signed into law last year.
In sum, we need a new model for research, prevention and treatment of
cancer, and we are here today to start that debate in Congress. We must
move from a magic bullet approach to a broad mosaic of care, in which
survivorship is also a key part of our approach to cancer. By doing so,
we can take a giant step toward reducing or even eliminating the burden
of cancer in our Nation and the world. It is no longer an impossible
dream, but a real possibility for the future.
Mr. President, I ask by unanimous consent that the text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 717

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 ``21st Century Cancer ALERT
(Access to Life-Saving Early detection, Research and
Treatment) Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) One in 2 men and one in 3 women are expected to develop
cancer in their lifetimes.
(2) Cancer is the leading cause of death for people under
the age of 85 and is expected to claim more than 1,500 lives
per day in 2008.
(3) At least 30 percent of all cancer deaths and 87 percent
of lung cancer deaths are attributed to smoking.
(4) The National Institutes of Health estimates that in
2007 alone, the overall cost of cancer to the United States
was more than $219,000,000,000.
(5) In recent decades, the biomedical research enterprise
has made considerable advances in the knowledge required to
understand, prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer; however, it
still takes 17 years, on average, to translate these
discoveries into viable treatment options.
(6) While clinical trials are vital to the discovery and
implementation of new preventative, diagnostic, and treatment
options, only 3 to 5 percent of the more than 10,000,000
adults with cancer in the United States participate in cancer
clinical trials.
(7) Where people reside should not determine whether they
live, yet women in rural areas are less likely to obtain
preventative cancer screenings than those residing in urban
areas.
(8) Two-thirds of childhood cancer survivors are likely to
experience at least one late effect from treatment and one-
fourth are expected to experience a late effect that is life
threatening.
(9) In 1971, there were only 3,000,000 cancer survivors.
Today, cancer survivors account for 3 percent of the United
States population, approximately 12,000,000.
(10) The National Cancer Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-218)
advanced the ability of the United States to develop new
scientific leads and help increase the rate of cancer
survivorship.
(11) Yet in the 37 years since the national declaration of
the War on Cancer, the age adjusted mortality rate for cancer
is still extraordinarily high. Eight forms of cancer have a
5-year survival rate of less than 50 percent (pancreatic,
liver, lung, esophageal, stomach, brain, multiple myeloma,
and ovarian).
(12) While there have been substantial achievements since
the crusade began, we are far from winning the war on cancer.
(13) Many obstacles have hindered our progress in cancer
prevention, research, and treatment.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
(1) To reauthorize the National Cancer Institute and
National Cancer Program in order to enhance and improve the
cancer research conducted and supported by the National
Cancer Institute and the National Cancer Program in order to
benefit cancer patients.
(2) To recognize that with an increased understanding of
cancer as more than 200 different diseases with genetic and
molecular variations, there is a need for increased
coordination and greater flexibility in how cancer research
is conducted and coordinated in order to maximize the return
the United States receives on its investment in such
research.
(3) To prepare for the looming impact of an aging
population of the United States and the anticipated financial
burden associated with medical treatment and lost
productivity, along with the toll of human suffering that
accompanies a cancer diagnosis.
(4) To support the National Cancer Institute in
establishing relationships and scientific consortia with an
emphasis on public-private partnership development, which
will further the development of advanced technologies that
will improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of
cancer.

SEC. 3. ADVANCEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CANCER PROGRAM.

Section 411 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
285a) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 411. NATIONAL CANCER PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--There shall be established a National
Cancer Program (referred to in this section as the `Program')
that shall consist of--
``(1) an expanded, intensified, and coordinated cancer
research program encompassing the research programs conducted
and supported by the Institute and the related research
programs of the other national research institutes, including
an expanded and intensified research program for the
prevention of cancer caused by occupational or environmental
exposure to carcinogens; and
``(2) the other programs and activities of the Institute.
``(b) Collaboration.--In carrying out the Program--
``(1) the Secretary and the Director of the Institute shall
identify relevant Federal agencies that shall collaborate
with respect to activities conducted under the Program
(including the Institute, the other Institutes and Centers of
the National Institutes of Health, the Office of the Director
of the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug
Administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services,
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the
Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Agency
for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Office for Human
Research Protections, the Health Resources and Services
Administration, and the Office for Human Research
Protections); and
``(2) the Secretary shall ensure that the policies related
to the promotion of cancer research of all agencies within
the Department of Health and Human Services (including the
Institute, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers
for Medicare & Medicaid Services) are harmonized, and shall

[[Page S3907]]

ensure that such agencies collaborate with regard to cancer
research and development.
``(c) Transparency and Efficiency.--
``(1) Budgeting.--In carrying out the Program, the Director
of the Institute shall, in preparing and submitting to the
President the annual budget estimate for the Program--
``(A) develop the budgetary needs of the entire Program and
submit the budget estimate relating to such needs to the
National Cancer Advisory Board for review prior to submitting
such estimate to the President; and
``(B) submit such budget estimate to the Committee on the
Budget and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and
the Committee on the Budget and Committee on Appropriations
of the House of Representatives at the same time that such
estimate is submitted to the President.
``(2) National cancer advisory board.--In establishing the
priorities of the Program, the National Cancer Advisory Board
shall provide for increased coordination by increasing the
participation of representatives (to the extent practicable,
representatives who have appropriate decision making
authority) of appropriate Federal agencies, including--
``(A) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services;
``(B) the Health Resources and Services Administration;
``(C) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
``(D) the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
``(d) Programs to Encourage Early Detection Research.--The
Director of the Institute shall develop a standard process
through which Federal agencies, including the Department of
Defense, and administrators of federally funded programs may
engage in early cancer detection research.
``(e) Identification of Promising Translational Research
Opportunities.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the Institute, acting
through the Program and in accordance with the NIH Reform Act
of 2007, shall continue to identify promising translational
research opportunities across all disease sites, populations,
and pathways to clinical goals through a transparent,
inclusive process by--
``(A) continuing to support efforts to develop a robust
number of public or nonprofit entities to carry out early
translational research activities;
``(B) emphasizing the role of the young researcher in the
program under this section; and
``(C) modifying guidelines for multiproject, collaborative,
early translational research awards to focus research and
reward collaborative team science.
``(2) Matching funds for research.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may provide assistance to
eligible entities to match the amount of non-Federal funds
made available by such entity for translational research of
the type described in paragraph (1) relating to cancer.
``(B) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive assistance
under subparagraph (A), an entity shall submit to the
Secretary an application at such time, in such manner, and
containing such information as the Secretary may require.
``(C) Recommendations and prioritization.--In providing
assistance under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall--
``(i) select entities based on the recommendations of--

``(I) the Director of NIH; and
``(II) a peer review process; and

``(ii) give priority to those entities submitting
applications under subparagraph (B) that demonstrate that the
research involved is high risk or translational research (as
determined by the Secretary).
``(D) Amount.--The amount of assistance to be provided to
an entity under subparagraph (A) shall be at the discretion
of the Secretary but shall not exceed an amount equal to 100
percent of the amount of non-Federal funds ($1 for each $2 of
non-Federal funds) made available for research described in
subparagraph (A).
``(E) Determination of amount of non-federal
contribution.--Non-Federal funds to be matched under
subparagraph (A) may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated,
including plant, equipment, or services. Amounts provided by
the Federal Government, and any portion of any service
subsidized by the Federal Government, may not be included in
determining the amount of such non-Federal funds.
``(f) Biological Resource Coordination and Advancement of
Technologies for Cancer Research.--
``(1) Establishment.--The Director of the Institute, acting
through the Program, shall establish an entity within the
Institute to augment ongoing efforts to advance new
technologies in cancer research, support the national
collection of tissues for cancer research purposes, and
ensure the quality of tissue collection.
``(2) Goals.--The entity established under paragraph (1)
shall--
``(A) be designed to expand the access of researchers to
biospecimens for cancer research purposes;
``(B) establish uniform standards for the handling and
preservation of patient tissue specimens by entities
participating in the network established under paragraph (3);
``(C) require adequate annotation of all relevant clinical
data while assuring patient privacy;
``(D) facilitate the linkage of public and private entities
into the national network under paragraph (3);
``(E) provide for the linkage of cancer registries to other
administrative Federal Government data sources, including the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Social Security
Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, with the goal of understanding the determinants
of cancer treatment, care, and outcomes by allowing economic,
social, genetic, and other factors to be analyzed in an
independent manner; and
``(F) develop strategies to ensure patient rights and
privacy, including an assessment of the regulations
promulgated pursuant to part C of title XI of the Social
Security Act and section 264(c) of the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2
note) (referred to in this section as the `HIPAA Privacy
Rule'), while facilitating advances in medical research.
``(3) Advancement of new technologies for cancer research
and expansion of cancer biorepository networks.--
``(A) In general.--As part of the entity established under
paragraph (1), the Director of the Institute shall build upon
existing initiatives to establish an interconnected network
of biorepositories (referred to in this subsection as the
`Network') with consistent, interoperable systems for the
collection and storage of tissues and information, the
annotation of such information, and the sharing of such
information through an interoperable information system.
``(B) Guidelines.--A biorepository in the Network that
receives Federal funds shall adopt the Institute's Best
Practices for Biospecimen Resources for Institute-supported
biospecimen resources (as published by the Institute and
including any successor guidelines) for the collection of
biospecimens and any accompanying data.
``(C) Representation.--The composition of any leadership
entity of the Network shall be determined by the Director of
the Institute and shall, at a minimum, include a
representative of--
``(i) private sector entities and individuals, including
cancer researchers and health care providers;
``(ii) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
``(iii) the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;
``(iv) the Office of National Coordination of Health
Information Technology;
``(v) the National Library of Medicine;
``(vi) the Office for the Protection of Research Subjects;
and
``(vii) the National Science Foundation.
``(D) Partnerships with tissue source sites.--The Director
of the Institute may enter into contracts with tissue source
sites to acquire data from such sites. Any such data shall be
acquired through the use of protocols and closely monitored,
transparent procedures within appropriate ethical and legal
frameworks.
``(4) Collection of data.--
``(A) Hospitals.--A hospital or ambulatory cancer center
that receives Federal funds shall offer patients the
opportunity to contribute their biospecimens and clinical
data to the entity established under paragraph (1).
``(B) Clinical trial data.--Clinical trial data relating to
cancer care and treatment shall be provided to the entity
established under paragraph (1).''.

SEC. 4. COMPREHENSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE ACCESS TO RESEARCH,
DATA, AND OUTCOMES.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office for Human
Research Protections shall issue guidance to National
Institutes of Health grantees concerning use of the
facilitated review process in conjunction with the central
institutional review board of the National Cancer Institute
as the preferred mechanism to satisfy regulatory requirements
to review ethical or scientific issues for all National
Cancer Institute-supported translational and clinical
research.
(b) Improved Privacy Standards in Clinical Research.--
(1) Permitted disclosure under the privacy rule.--For
purposes of the Privacy Rule (as referred to in section
411(f)(2)(F) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by
this Act), a covered entity (as defined for purposes of such
Rule) shall be in compliance with such Rule relating to the
disclosure of de-identified patient information if such
disclosure is--
(A) pursuant to a waiver that had been granted by an
institutional review board or privacy board relating to such
disclosure; and
(B) the entity informs patients when they make first
patient contact with the entity that the entity is a research
institution that may conduct research using their de-
identified medical records.
(2) Synchronization of standards.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall study the advantages and disadvantages of the
synchronization of the standards for research under the
Common Rule (under part 46 of title 45, Code of Federal
Regulations) and the Privacy Rule (as defined in section
411(f)(2)(F) of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by
this Act) in order to determine the appropriate data elements
that should be omitted under the strict de-identification
standards relating to personal information.

[[Page S3908]]

(B) Review of recommendations.--In carrying out
subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall conduct a review of recommendations made by the
Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections as well as
recommendations from the appropriate leadership of the
National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics.
(C) Additional areas.--In carrying out subparagraph (A),
the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall--
(i) make recommendations concerning the conduct of
international research to determine the boundaries and
applications of extraterritorially under the Privacy Rule (as
referred to in section 411(f)(2)(F) of the Public Health
Service Act, as amended by this Act); and
(ii) include biorepository storage information when
obtaining patient consent.
(D) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall submit to the appropriate committee of
Congress, a report concerning the recommendations made under
this paragraph.
(3) Application of privacy rule to external researchers.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the Privacy Rule (as defined in section 411(f)(2)(F) of
the Public Health Service Act, as amended by this Act) shall
apply to external researchers.
(B) Definition.--
(i) In general.--In this paragraph, the term ``external
researcher'' means a researcher who is on the staff of a
covered entity (as defined in the Privacy Rule) but who is
not actually employed by such covered entity.
(ii) Internal and external researchers.--With respect to
determining the distinction of whether or not a researcher
has the ability to use protected health information under the
provisions of this paragraph, such determination shall be
based on whether the covered entity involved exercises
effective control over that researcher's activities. For
purposes of the preceding sentence, effective control may
include membership and privileges of staff or the ability to
terminate staff membership or discipline staff.
(c) Liability.--The Director of the Office of Human
Research Protection, the Director of the National Institutes
of Health, and the Director of the National Cancer Institute
shall issue guidance for entities awarded grants by such
Federal agencies to provide instruction on how such entities
may best address concerns or issues relating to the liability
that institutions or researchers may incur as a result of
using the facilitated review process.

SEC. 5. ENHANCED FOCUS AND REPORTING ON CANCER RESEARCH.

Part C of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 285 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
417A the following:

``SEC. 417B. ENHANCED FOCUS AND REPORTING ON CANCER RESEARCH.

``(a) Annual Independent Report.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the Institute shall
complete an annual independent report that shall be submitted
to Congress on the same date that the annual budget estimate
described in section 413(b)(9) is submitted to the President.
``(2) Contents of report.--
``(A) Cancer categories.--The report required under
paragraph (1) shall address the following categories of
cancer:
``(i) Cancers that result in a 5-year survival rate of less
than 50 percent.
``(ii) Cancers in which the incidence rate is less than 15
cases per 100,000 people, or fewer than 40,000 new cases per
year.
``(B) Information.--With regard to each of the categories
of cancer described in subparagraph (A), the report shall
contain information regarding--
``(i) a strategic plan for reducing the mortality rate for
the annual year, including specific research areas of
interest and budget amounts;
``(ii) identification of any barriers to implementing the
strategic plan described in clause (i) for the annual year;
``(iii) if the report for the prior year contained a
strategic plan described in clause (i), an assessment of the
success of such plan;
``(iv) the total amount of grant funding, including the
total dollar amount awarded per grant and per funding year,
under--

``(I) the National Cancer Institute; and
``(II) the National Institutes of Health;

``(v) the percentage of grant applications favorably
reviewed by the Institute that the Institute funded in the
previous annual year;
``(vi) the total number of grant applications, with greater
than 50 percent relevance to each of the categories of cancer
described in subparagraph (A), received by the Institute for
awards in the previous annual year;
``(vii) the total number of grants awarded, with greater
than 50 percent relevance to each of the categories of cancer
described in subparagraph (A), for the previous annual year
and the number of awards per grant type, including the Common
Scientific Outline designation specific to each such grant;
and
``(viii) the total number of primary investigators that
received grants from the Institute for projects with greater
than 50 percent relevance to each of the categories of cancer
described in paragraph (1), including the total number of
awards granted to experienced investigators and the total
number of awards granted to investigators receiving their
first grant from the National Institutes of Health.
``(3) Definition.--In this section, the term `annual year'
means the year for which the strategic plan described in
paragraph (2)(B)(i) applies, which shall be the same fiscal
year for which the Director of the Institute submits the
annual budget estimate described in section 413(b)(9) for
that year.
``(b) Grant Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Director of the Institute, in
cooperation with the Director of the Fogarty International
Center for Advanced Study in the Health Sciences and the
Directors of other Institutes, as appropriate, shall award
grants to researchers to conduct research regarding cancers
for which--
``(A) the incidence is fewer than 40,000 new cases per
year; and
``(B) the 5-year survival rate is less than 50 percent.
``(2) Prioritization.--In awarding grants for research
regarding cancers described in paragraph (1)(A), the Director
of the Institute shall give priority to collaborative
research projects between adult and pediatric cancer
research, with preference for projects building upon existing
multi-institutional research infrastructures.
``(3) Tissue samples.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the Director of the Institute shall require each recipient
receiving a grant under this subsection to submit tissue
samples to designated tumor banks.
``(B) Waiver.--The Director of the Institute may grant a
waiver of the requirement described in subparagraph (A) to a
recipient who receives a grant for research described in
paragraph (1)(B) and who submits an application for such
waiver to the Director of the Institute, in the manner in
which such Director may require.''.

SEC. 6. CONTINUING ACCESS TO CARE FOR PREVENTION AND EARLY
DETECTION.

(a) Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.--Part B of title
III of the Public Health Service Act is amended by inserting
after section 317D (42 U.S.C. 247b-5) the following:

``SEC. 317D-1. COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING PROGRAM.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
may award competitive grants to eligible entities to carry
out programs--
``(1) to provide screenings for colorectal cancer to
individuals according to screening guidelines set by the
United States Preventive Services Task Force;
``(2) to provide appropriate referrals for medical
treatment of individuals screened pursuant to paragraph (1)
and to ensure, to the extent practicable, the provision of
appropriate follow-up services and support services such as
case management;
``(3) to develop and disseminate public information and
education programs for the detection and control of colon
cancer;
``(4) to improve the education, training, and skills of
health professionals (including allied health professionals)
in the detection and control of colon cancer;
``(5) to establish mechanisms through which eligible
entities can monitor the quality of screening procedures for
colon cancer, including the interpretation of such
procedures; and
``(6) to evaluate activities conducted under paragraphs (1)
through (5) through appropriate surveillance or program-
monitoring activities.
``(b) Eligibility.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section an entity shall--
``(A) be--
``(i) a State; or
``(ii) an Indian tribe or tribal organization (as such
terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act);
``(B) submit to the Secretary as application, at such time,
in such manner, and containing such information as the
Secretary may require, including--
``(i) a description of the purposes for which the entity
intends to expend amounts under the grant; and
``(ii) a description of the populations, areas, and
localities with a need for the services or activities
described in clause (i);
``(C) provide matching funds in accordance with paragraph
(2);
``(D) provide assurances that the entity will--
``(i) establish such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to ensure the proper disbursal
of, and accounting for, amounts received under subsection
(a);
``(ii) upon request, provide records maintained pursuant to
clause (i) to the Secretary or the Comptroller General of the
United States for purposes of auditing the expenditures of
the grant by the eligible entity; and
``(iii) submit to the Secretary such reports as the
Secretary may require with respect to the grant; and
``(E) provide assurances that the entity will comply with
the restrictions described in subsection (e).
``(2) Matching requirement.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may not award a grant to
an eligible entity under this section unless the eligible
entity involved agrees, with respect to the costs to be
incurred by the eligible entity in carrying out the purpose
described in the application under paragraph (1)(B)(i), to
make available non-Federal contributions (in cash or in kind
under subparagraph (B)) toward such costs in an amount equal
to not less than $1 for each $3 of Federal funds provided in
the grant.

[[Page S3909]]

Such contributions may be made directly or through donations
from public or private entities.
``(B) Determination of amount of non-federal
contribution.--
``(i) In general.--Non-Federal contributions required in
subparagraph (A) may be in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated,
including equipment or services (and excluding indirect or
overhead costs). Amounts provided by the Federal Government,
or services assisted or subsidized to any significant extent
by the Federal Government, may not be included in determining
the amount of such non-Federal contributions.
``(ii) Maintenance of effort.--In making a determination of
the amount of non-Federal contributions for purposes of
subparagraph (A), the Secretary may include only non-Federal
contributions in excess of the average amount of non-Federal
contributions made by the eligible entity involved toward the
purpose described in subsection (a) for the 2-year period
preceding the first fiscal year for which the eligible entity
is applying to receive a grant under such section.
``(iii) Inclusion of relevant non-federal contributions for
medicaid.--In making a determination of the amount of non-
Federal contributions for purposes of subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall, subject to clauses (i) and (ii), include any
non-Federal amounts expended pursuant to title XIX of the
Social Security Act by the eligible entity involved toward
the purpose described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection
(a).
``(c) Prioritization.--
``(1) In general.--In awarding grants under this section,
the Secretary shall give priority to recipients that are
safety-net providers.
``(2) Definition.--In this section, the term `safety-net
provider' means a health care provider--
``(A) that by legal mandate or explicitly adopted mission,
offers care to individuals without regard to the individual's
ability to pay for such services; or
``(B) for whom a substantial share of the patients are
uninsured, receive Medicaid, or are otherwise vulnerable.
``(d) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--An eligible entity may, subject to
paragraphs (2) and (3), expend amounts received under a grant
under subsection (a) to carry out the purposes described in
such subsection through the awarding of grants to public and
nonprofit private entities and through contracts entered into
with public and private entities.
``(2) Certain application.--If a nonprofit private entity
and a private entity that is not a nonprofit entity both
submit applications to a grantee under subsection (a) for a
grant or contract as provided for in paragraph (1), the
grantee may give priority to the application submitted by the
nonprofit private entity in any case in which the grantee
determines that the quality of such application is equivalent
to the quality of the application submitted by the other
private entity.
``(3) Payments for screenings.--The amount paid by a
grantee under subsection (a) to an entity under this
subsection for a screening procedure as described in
subsection (a)(1) may not exceed the amount that would be
paid under part B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act
if payment were made under such part for furnishing the
procedure to an individual enrolled under such part.
``(e) Restriction on Use of Fund.--The Secretary may not
award a grant to an eligible entity under subsection (a)
unless the entity agrees that--
``(1) in providing screenings under subsection (a)(1), the
eligible entity will give priority to low-income individuals
who lack adequate coverage under health insurance and health
plans with respect to screenings for colorectal cancer;
``(2) initially and throughout the period during which
amounts are received pursuant to the grant, not less than 60
percent of the grant shall be expended to provide each of the
services or activities described in subsections (a)(1) and
(a)(2);
``(3) not more than 10 percent of the grant will be
expended for administrative expenses with respect to the
activities funded under the grant;
``(4) funding received under the grant will supplement, and
not supplant, the expenditures of the eligible entity and the
value for in-kind contributions for carrying out the
activities for which the grant was awarded;
``(5) funding will not be expended to make payment for any
item or service to the extent that payment has been made, or
can reasonably be expected to be made, with respect to such
item or service--
``(A) under any State compensation program, under an
insurance policy, or under any Federal or State health
benefits program; or
``(B) by an entity that provides health services on a
prepaid basis; and
``(6) funds will not be expended to provide inpatient
hospital services for any individual.
``(f) Limitation on Imposition of Fees for Services.--The
Secretary may not award a grant to an eligible entity under
this section unless the eligible entity involved agrees that,
if a charge is imposed for the provision of services or
activities under the grant, such charge--
``(1) will be made according to a schedule of charges that
is made available to the public;
``(2) will be adjusted to reflect the income of the
individual involved; and
``(3) will not be imposed on any individual with an income
of less than 100 percent of the official poverty line, as
established by the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget and revised by the Secretary in accordance with
section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42
U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any revision required by such
section.
``(g) Requirement Regarding Medicare.--The Secretary may
not award a grant to an eligible entity under this section
unless the eligible entity involved provides, as applicable,
the following assurances:
``(1) Screenings under subsection (a)(1) will be carried
out as preventive health measures in accordance with
evidence-based screening guidelines and procedures as
specified in section 1861(pp)(1) of the Social Security Act.
``(2) An individual will be considered high risk for
purposes of subsection (a)(1) only if the individual is high
risk within the meaning of section 1861(pp)(2) of such Act.
``(h) Requirement Regarding Medicaid.--The Secretary may
not award a grant to an eligible entity under subsection (a)
unless the State plan under title XIX of the Social Security
Act for the State includes the screening procedures and
referrals specified in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) as
medical assistance provided under the plan.
``(i) Technical Assistance and Provision of Supplies and
Services in Lieu of Grant Funds.--
``(1) Technical assistance.--The Secretary may provide
training and technical assistance with respect to the
planning, development, and operation of any program funded by
a grant under subsection (a). The Secretary may provide such
technical assistance directly to eligible entities or through
grants to, or contracts with, public and private entities.
``(2) Provision of supplies and services in lieu of grant
funds.--
``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), upon the
request of an eligible entity receiving a grant under
subsection (a), the Secretary, for the purpose of aiding the
eligible entity to carry out a program under this section--
``(i) may provide supplies, equipment, and services to the
eligible entity; and
``(ii) may detail to the eligible entity any officer or
employee of the Department of Health and Human Services.
``(B) Corresponding reduction in payments.--With respect to
a request made by an eligible entity under subparagraph (A),
the Secretary shall reduce the amount of payments made under
the grant under subsection (a) to the eligible entity by an
amount equal to the fair market value of any supplies,
equipment, or services provided by the Secretary and the
costs of detailing personnel (including pay, allowances, and
travel expenses) under subparagraph (A). The Secretary shall,
for the payment of expenses incurred in complying with such
request, expend the amounts withheld.
``(j) Evaluations and Report.--
``(1) Evaluations.--The Secretary shall, directly or
through contracts with public or private entities, provide
for annual evaluations of programs carried out pursuant to
this section. Such evaluations shall include evaluations of
the extent to which eligible entities carrying out such
programs are in compliance with subsection (a)(2).
``(2) Report to congress.--The Secretary shall, not later
than 1 year after the date on which amounts are first
appropriated to carry out this section, and annually
thereafter, submit to Congress, a report summarizing
evaluations carried out pursuant to paragraph (1) during the
preceding fiscal year and making such recommendations for
administrative and legislative initiatives with respect to
this section as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.''.
(b) Optional Medicaid Coverage of Certain Persons Screened
and Found to Have Colorectal Cancer.--
(1) Coverage as optional categorically needy group.--
(A) In general.--Section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)(A)(ii)) is amended--
(i) in subclause (XVIII), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in subclause (XIX), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(XX) who are described in subsection (gg) (relating to
certain persons screened and found to need treatment from
complications from screening or have colorectal cancer);''.
(B) Group described.--Section 1902 of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(gg) Individuals described in this subsection are
individuals who--
``(1) are not described in subsection (a)(10)(A)(i);
``(2) have not attained age 65;
``(3) have been screened for colorectal cancer and need
treatment for complications due to screening or colorectal
cancer; and
``(4) are not otherwise covered under creditable coverage,
as defined in section 2701(c) of the Public Health Service
Act.''.
(C) Limitation on benefits.--Section 1902(a)(10) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396a(a)(10)) is amended in
the matter following subparagraph (G)--
(i) by striking ``and (XIV)'' and inserting ``(XIV)''; and
(ii) by inserting ``, and (XV) the medical assistance made
available to an individual described in subsection (gg) who
is eligible

[[Page S3910]]

for medical assistance only because of subparagraph
(A)(10)(ii)(XX) shall be limited to medical assistance
provided during the period in which such an individual
requires treatment for complications due to screening or
colorectal cancer'' before the semicolon.
(D) Conforming amendments.--Section 1905(a) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)) is amended in the matter
preceding paragraph (1)--
(i) in clause (xii), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(ii) in clause (xiii), by adding ``or'' at the end; and
(iii) by inserting after clause (xiii) the following:

``(xiv) individuals described in section 1902(gg),''.

(2) Presumptive eligibility.--
(A) In general.--Title XIX of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
1920B the following:

``optional application of presumptive eligibility provisions for
certain persons with colorectal cancer

``Sec. 1920C. A State may elect to apply the provisions of
section 1920B to individuals described in section 1902(gg)
(relating to certain colorectal cancer patients) in the same
manner as such section applies to individuals described in
section 1902(aa) (relating to certain breast or cervical
cancer patients).''.
(B) Conforming amendments.--
(i) Section 1902(a)(47) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1396a(a)(47)) is amended--

(I) by striking ``and'' after ``section 1920'' and
inserting a comma;
(II) by striking ``and'' after ``with such section'' and
inserting a comma; and
(III) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and provide for making medical assistance
available to individuals described in section 1920C during a
presumptive eligibility period in accordance with such
section''.

(ii) Section 1903(u)(1)(d)(v) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
1396b(u)(1)(d)(v)) is amended--

(I) by striking ``or for'' and inserting ``, for''; and
(II) by inserting before the period the following: ``, or
for medical assistance provided to an individual described in
section 1920C during a presumptive eligibility period under
such section''.

(3) Enhanced match.--The first sentence of section 1905(b)
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(b)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' before ``(4)''; and
(B) by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, and (5) the Federal medical assistance
percentage shall be equal to the enhanced FMAP described in
section 2105(b) with respect to medical assistance provided
to individuals who are eligible for such assistance only on
the basis of section 1902(a)(10)(A)(ii)(XX)''.
(4) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
apply to medical assistance for items and services furnished
on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, without regard to whether final
regulations to carry out such amendments have been
promulgated by such date.
(c) Mobile Medical Van Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this subsection as the ``Secretary''), acting
through the Administrator of the Health Resources and
Services Administration, shall award grants to eligible
entities for the development and implementation of a mobile
medical van program that shall provide cancer screening
services that receive an ``A'' or ``B'' recommendation by the
U.S. Preventative Services Task Force of the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality to communities that are
underserved and suffer from barriers to access to high
quality cancer prevention care.
(2) Eligible entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant
under paragraph (1), and entity shall--
(A) be a consortium of public and private entities (such as
academic medical centers, universities, hospitals, and non
profit organizations);
(B) submit to the Secretary an application at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the Secretary
shall require, including--
(i) a description of the manner in which the applicant
intends to use funds received under the grant;
(ii) a description of the manner in which the applicant
will evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the health care
services provided under the program carried out under the
grant;
(iii) a plan for sustaining activities and services funded
under the grant after Federal support for the program has
ended;
(iv) a plan for the referral of patients to other health
care facilities if additional services are needed;
(v) a protocol for the transfer of patients in the event of
a medical emergency;
(vi) a plan for advertising the services of the mobile
medical van to the communities targeted for health care
services; and
(vii) a plan to educate patients about the availability of
federally funded medical insurance programs for which such
patients, or their children, may qualify; and
(C) agree that amounts under the grant will be used to
supplement, and not supplant, other funds (including in-kind
contributions) used by the entity to carry out activities for
which the grant is awarded.
(3) Use of funds.--An entity shall use amounts received
under a grant under this subsection to do any of the
following:
(A) Purchase or lease a mobile medical van.
(B) Make repairs and provide maintenance for a mobile
medical van.
(C) Purchase or lease telemedicine equipment that is
reasonable and necessary to operate the mobile medical van.
(D) Purchase medical supplies and medication that are
necessary to provide health care services on the mobile
medical van.
(E) Retain medical professionals with expertise and
experience in providing cancer screening services to
underserved communities to provide health care services on
the mobile medical van.
(4) Matching requirements.--
(A) In general.--With respect to the costs of a mobile
medical van program to be carried out under a grant under
this subsection, the grantee shall make available (directly
or through donations from public or private entities) non-
Federal contributions toward such costs in an amount that is
not less than the amount of the Federal funds provided under
this grant.
(B) Determination of amount contributed.--Non-Federal
contributions required under subparagraph (A) may be in cash
or in kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or
services. Amounts provided by the Federal Government, or
services assisted or subsidized to any significant extent by
the Federal Government, may not be included in determining
the amount of such non-Federal contributions.
(C) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive the requirement
established in subparagraph (A) if--
(i) the Secretary determines that such waiver is justified;
and
(ii) the Secretary publishes the rationale for such waiver
in the Federal Register.
(D) Return of funds.--An entity that receives a grant under
this section that fails to comply with subparagraph (A) shall
return to the Secretary an amount equal to the difference
between--
(i) the amount provided under the grant; and
(ii) the amount of matching funds actually provided by the
grantee.
(5) Considerations in making grants.--In awarding grants
under this subsection, the Secretary shall give preference to
eligible entities--
(A) that will provide cancer screening services in
underserved areas; and
(B) that on the date on which the grant is awarded, have a
mobile medical van that is nonfunctioning due to the need for
necessary mechanical repairs.
(6) Limitation on duration and amount of grant.--A grant
under this subsection shall be for a 2-year period, except
that the Secretary may waive such limitation and extend the
grant period by an additional year. The amount awarded to an
entity under such grant for a fiscal year shall not exceed
$200,000.
(7) Evaluation.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which a grant awarded to an entity under this subsection
expires, the entity shall submit to the Secretary the results
of an evaluation to be conducted by the entity concerning the
effectiveness of the program carried out under the grant.
(8) Report.--Not later than 18 months after grants are
first awarded under this subsection, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives a report on the results of activities carried
out with amounts received under such grants.
(9) Definitions.--In this section:
(A) Mobile medical van.--The term ``mobile medical van''
means a mobile vehicle that is equipped to provide non-urgent
medical services and health care counseling to patients in
underserved areas.
(B) Underserved area.--The term ``underserved area'', with
respect to the location of patients receiving medical
treatment, means a ``medically underserved community'' as
defined in section 799B(6) of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 295p(6)).
(d) Access to Prevention and Early Detection for Certain
Cancers.--
(1) Cancer genome atlas.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the National Cancer Institute, shall
provide for the inclusion of cancers with survival rates of
less than 25 percent at 5 years in the Cancer Genome Atlas.
(2) Phase in.--The Director of the National Cancer
Institute shall phase in the participation of cancers
described in paragraph (1) in the Cancer Genome Atlas
Consortium.
(3) Working groups.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the National Cancer Institute, shall
establish formal working groups for cancers with survival
rates of less than 25 percent at 5 years within the Early
Detection Research Network.
(4) Computer assisted diagnostic, surgical, treatment and
drug testing innovations to reduce mortality from cancers.--
The Director of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging
and Bioengineering shall ensure that the Quantum Grant
Program and the Image Guided Interventions programs expedite
the development of computer assisted diagnostic, surgical,
treatment and drug testing innovations to reduce mortality
from cancers with survival rates of less than 25 percent at 5
years.

[[Page S3911]]

SEC. 7. EARLY RECOGNITION AND TREATMENT OF CANCER THROUGH USE
OF BIOMARKERS.

(a) Promotion of the Discovery and Development of
Biomarkers.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), in
consultation with appropriate Federal agencies including the
National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute,
the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, and extramural experts as
appropriate, shall establish and coordinate a program to
award contracts to eligible entities to support the
development of innovative biomarker discovery technologies.
All activities under this section shall be consistent with
and complement the ongoing efforts of the Oncology Biomarker
Qualification Initiative and the Reagan-Udall Foundation of
the Food and Drug Administration.
(2) Lead agency.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall designate a lead
Federal agency to administer and coordinate the program
established under paragraph (1).
(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible to enter into a contract
under paragraph (1), an entity shall submit to the Secretary
an application at such time, in such manner, and containing
such information as the Secretary may require. Such
information shall be sufficient to enable the Secretary to--
(A) promote the scientific review of such contracts in a
timely fashion; and
(B) contain the capacity to perform the necessary analysis
of contract applications, including determinations as to the
intellectual expertise of applicants.
(4) Requirement.--In awarding contracts under this
subsection, the lead agency shall consider whether the
research involved will result in the development of
quantifiable biomarkers of cell signaling pathways that will
have the broadest applicability across different tumor types
or different diseases.
(5) International consortia.--The Secretary shall designate
one of the Federal entities described in paragraph (1) to
establish an international private-public consortia to
develop and share methods and precompetitive data on the
validation and qualification of cancer biomarkers for
specific uses.
(b) Clinical Study Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, and the Director of the National Cancer
Institute shall jointly develop guidelines for the conduct of
clinical studies designed to generate clinical data relating
to cancer care and treatment biomarkers that is adequate for
review by each such Federal entity. Such guidelines shall be
designed to assist in optimizing clinical study design and to
strengthen the evidence base for evaluations of studies
related to cancer biomarkers.
(c) Demonstration Project.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary, in consultation with the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Administrator of the
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, shall carry out a
demonstration project that provides for a limited regional
assessment of biomarker tests to facilitate the controlled
and limited use of a risk assessment measure with an
intervention that may consist of a biomarker test.
(2) Procedures.--As a component of the demonstration
project under paragraph (1), the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs, in consultation with other relevant agencies, shall
establish procedures that independent research entities shall
follow in conducting high quality assessments of efficacy of
biomarker tests.
(d) Postmarket Surveillance.--The Food and Drug
Administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services shall assess quality and accuracy of biomarker tests
through appropriate postmarket surveillance and other means,
as necessary and appropriate to the mission of each such
agency.
(e) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate
that the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and the Director of
the National Cancer Institute should continue to place high
priority upon the identification and use of biomarkers to--
(1) determine the role of genetic polymorphisms on drug
activity and toxicity;
(2) establish effective strategies for selecting patients
for treatment with specific drugs; and
(3) identify early biomarkers of clinical benefit.
(f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``biomarker''
means any characteristic that can be objectively measured and
evaluated as an indicator of normal biologic processes,
pathogenic processes, or pharmacological responses to
therapeutic interventions.

SEC. 8. CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS.

(a) Coverage for Individuals Participating in Approved
Cancer Clinical Trials.--
(1) ERISA amendment.--Subpart B of part 7 of subtitle B of
title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (29 U.S.C. 1185 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end
the following:

``SEC. 715. COVERAGE FOR INDIVIDUALS PARTICIPATING IN
APPROVED CANCER CLINICAL TRIALS.

``(a) Coverage.--
``(1) In general.--If a group health plan (or a health
insurance issuer offering health insurance coverage in
connection with the plan) provides coverage to a qualified
individual (as defined in subsection (b)), the plan or
issuer--
``(A) may not deny the individual participation in the
clinical trial referred to in subsection (b)(2);
``(B) subject to subsection (c), may not deny (or limit or
impose additional conditions on) the coverage of routine
patient costs for items and services furnished in connection
with participation in the trial; and
``(C) may not discriminate against the individual on the
basis of the individual's participation in such trial.
``(2) Exclusion of certain costs.--For purposes of
paragraph (1)(B), subject to subparagraph (B), routine
patient costs include all items and services consistent with
the coverage provided in the plan (or coverage) that is
typically covered for a qualified individual who is not
enrolled in a clinical trial and that was not necessitated
solely because of the trial, except--
``(A) the investigational item, device or service, itself;
or
``(B) items and services that are provided solely to
satisfy data collection and analysis needs and that are not
used in the direct clinical management of the patient.
``(3) Use of in-network providers.--If one or more
participating providers is participating in a clinical trial,
nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed as preventing a
plan or issuer from requiring that a qualified individual
participate in the trial through such a participating
provider if the provider will accept the individual as a
participant in the trial.
``(b) Qualified Individual Defined.--For purposes of
subsection (a), the term `qualified individual' means an
individual who is a participant or beneficiary in a group
health plan and who meets the following conditions:
``(1)(A) The individual has been diagnosed with cancer.
``(B) The individual is eligible to participate in an
approved clinical trial according to the trial protocol with
respect to treatment of such illness.
``(2) Either--
``(A) the referring health care professional is a
participating health care provider and has concluded that the
individual's participation in such trial would be appropriate
based upon the individual meeting the conditions described in
paragraph (1); or
``(B) the participant or beneficiary provides medical and
scientific information establishing that the individual's
participation in such trial would be appropriate based upon
the individual meeting the conditions described in paragraph
(1).
``(c) Limitations on Coverage.--This section shall not be
construed to require a group health plan, or a health
insurance issuer in connection with a group health plan, to
provide benefits for routine patient care services provided
outside of the plan's (or coverage's) health care provider
network unless out-of-network benefits are otherwise provided
under the plan (or coverage).
``(d) Approved Clinical Trial Defined.--
``(1) In general.--In this section, the term `approved
clinical trial' means a phase I, phase II, phase III, or
phase IV clinical trial that relates to the prevention and
treatment of cancer (including related symptoms) and is
described in any of the following subparagraphs:
``(A) Federally funded trials.--The study or investigation
is approved or funded (which may include funding through in-
kind contributions) by one or more of the following:
``(i) The National Institutes of Health.
``(ii) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
``(iii) The Agency for Health Care Research and Quality.
``(iv) The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
``(v) cooperative group or center of any of the entities
described in clauses (i) through (iv) or the Department of
Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs.
``(vi) A qualified non-governmental research entity
identified in the guidelines issued by the National
Institutes of Health for center support grants.
``(vii) Any of the following if the conditions described in
paragraph (2) are met:

``(I) The Department of Veterans Affairs.
``(II) The Department of Defense.
``(III) The Department of Energy.

``(B) The study or investigation is conducted under an
investigational new drug application reviewed by the Food and
Drug Administration.
``(C) The study or investigation is a drug trial that is
exempt from having such an investigational new drug
application.
``(2) Conditions for departments.--The conditions described
in this paragraph, for a study or investigation conducted by
a Department, are that the study or investigation has been
reviewed and approved through a system of peer review that
the Secretary determines--
``(A) to be comparable to the system of peer review of
studies and investigations used by the National Institutes of
Health, and
``(B) assures unbiased review of the highest scientific
standards by qualified individuals who have no interest in
the outcome of the review.
``(e) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit a plan's or issuer's coverage with respect
to clinical trials.

[[Page S3912]]

``(f) Preemption.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, nothing in this section shall preempt State laws
that require a clinical trials policy for State regulated
health insurance plans.''.
(2) Clerical amendments.--
(A) Section 732(a) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 1191a(a)) is
amended by striking ``section 711'' and inserting ``sections
711 and 715''.
(B) The table of contents in section 1 of such Act is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 714
the following new item:

``Sec. 715. Coverage for individuals participating in approved cancer
clinical trials.''.

(b) Clinical Trials.--The Director of the National Cancer
Institute shall--
(1) collaborate with the Director of the National
Institutes of Health to engage in a campaign to educate the
public on the value of clinical trials for oncology patients,
which shall be implemented on the local level and focus on
patient populations that traditionally are underrepresented
in clinical trials;
(2) conduct an educational campaign for health care
professionals to educate them to consider clinical trials as
treatment options for their patients; and
(3) conduct research to document and demonstrate promising
practices in cancer clinical trial recruitment and retention
efforts, particularly for patient populations that
traditionally are underrepresented in clinical trials.

SEC. 9. HEALTH PROFESSIONS WORKFORCE.

(a) Increase Nurse Faculty.--Section 811(f)(2) of the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 296j(f)(2)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(2) Benefits for retiring nurse officers qualified as
faculty.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall provide
to any individual described in subparagraph (B) the payment
of retired or retirement pay without reduction based on
receipt of pay or other compensation from the institution of
higher education concerned.
``(B) Covered individuals.--An individual described in this
subparagraph is an individual who--
``(i) is retired from the Armed Forces after service as a
commissioned officer in the nurse corps of the Armed Forces;
``(ii) holds a graduate degree in nursing; and
``(iii) serves as a part- or full-time faculty member of an
accredited school of nursing.
``(C) Nurse corps.--Any accredited school of nursing that
employs a retired nurse officer as faculty under this
paragraph shall agree to provide financial assistance to
individuals undertaking an educational program at such school
leading to a degree in nursing who agree, upon completion of
such program, to accept a commission as an officer in the
nurse corps of the Armed Forces.''.
(b) Oncology Workforce.--
(1) Study.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
(referred to in this subsection as the ``Secretary'') shall
conduct a study on the current and future cancer care
workforce needs in the following areas:
(A) Cancer research.
(B) Care and treatment of cancer patients and survivors.
(C) Quality of life, symptom management, and pain
management.
(D) Early detection and diagnosis.
(E) Cancer prevention.
(F) Genetic testing, counseling, and ethical considerations
related to such testing.
(G) Diversity and appropriate care for disparity
populations.
(H) Palliative and end-of-life care.
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report that describes the findings of the study conducted
under paragraph (2).

SEC. 10. PATIENT NAVIGATOR PROGRAM.

Section 340A of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
256a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (e), by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Minimum core proficiencies.--The Secretary shall not
award a grant to an entity under this section unless such
entity provides assurances that patient navigators recruited,
assigned, trained, or employed using grant funds meet minimum
core proficiencies that are tailored for the main focus or
intervention of the navigation program involved.''; and
(2) in subsection (m)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period the
following ``, and such sums as may be necessary for each of
fiscal years 2011 through 2015.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``2010'' and replacing
with ``2015.''

SEC. 11. CANCER CARE AND COVERAGE UNDER MEDICAID AND
MEDICARE.

(a) Coverage of Routine Costs Associated With Clinical
Trials Under Medicare.--
(1) Coverage under part a.--Section 1814 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395f) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(m) Coverage of Routine Costs Associated With Clinical
Trials.--The Secretary shall not exclude from payment for
items and services provided under a clinical trial payment
for coverage of routine costs of care (as defined by the
Secretary) furnished to an individual entitled to benefits
under this part who participates in such a trial to the
extent the Secretary provides payment for such costs as of
the date of enactment of this subsection.''.
(2) Coverage under part b.--Section 1833(w) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(w)), as added by section 184 of
the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-275), is amended--
(A) by striking ``Payment.--The Secretary'' and inserting
``Payment and Coverage of Routine Costs Associated With
Clinical Trials.--
``(1) Methods of payment.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Coverage of routine costs associated with clinical
trials.--The Secretary shall not exclude from payment for
items and services provided under a clinical trial payment
for coverage of routine costs of care (as defined by the
Secretary) furnished to an individual enrolled under this
part who participates in such a trial to the extent the
Secretary provides payment for such costs as of the date of
enactment of this subsection.''.
(3) Provider outreach.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Administrator of the Centers for
Medicare & Medicaid Services, shall conduct an outreach
campaign to providers of services and suppliers under the
Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act
regarding coverage of routine costs of care furnished to
Medicare beneficiaries participating in clinical trials in
accordance with sections 1814(m) and 1833(w)(2) of the Social
Security Act (as added by paragraphs (1) and (2),
respectively).
(b) Demonstration Project to Provide Comprehensive Cancer
Care Planning Services Under Medicare.--
(1) In general.--Beginning not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services (referred to in this subsection as the
``Secretary'') shall conduct a 3-year demonstration project
(referred to in this subsection as the ``demonstration
project'') under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395 et seq.) under which payment for comprehensive
cancer care planning services furnished by eligible entities
shall be made.
(2) Comprehensive cancer care planning services.--For
purposes of this subsection, the term ``comprehensive cancer
care planning services'' means--
(A) with respect to an individual who is diagnosed with
cancer, the development of a plan of care that--
(i) details, to the greatest extent practicable, all
aspects of the care to be provided to the individual, with
respect to the treatment of such cancer, including any
curative treatment and comprehensive symptom management (such
as palliative care) involved;
(ii) is documented in the patient's medical record and
furnished to the individual in person within a period
specified by the Secretary that is as soon as practicable
after the date on which the individual is so diagnosed;
(iii) is furnished, to the greatest extent practicable, in
a form that appropriately takes into account cultural and
linguistic needs of the individual in order to make the plan
accessible to the individual; and
(iv) is in accordance with standards determined by the
Secretary to be appropriate;
(B) with respect to an individual for whom a plan of care
has been developed under subparagraph (A), the revision of
such plan of care as necessary to account for any substantial
change in the condition of the individual, if such revision--
(i) is in accordance with clauses (i) and (iii) of such
subparagraph; and
(ii) is documented in the patient's medical record and
furnished to the individual within a period specified by the
Secretary that is as soon as practicable after the date of
such revision;
(C) with respect to an individual who has completed the
primary treatment for cancer, as defined by the Secretary
(such as completion of chemotherapy or radiation treatment),
the development of a follow-up cancer care plan that--
(i) describes the elements of the primary treatment,
including symptom management, furnished to such individual;
(ii) provides recommendations for the subsequent care of
the individual with respect to the cancer involved;
(iii) identifies, to the greatest extent possible, a
healthcare provider to oversee subsequent care and follow-up
as needed and to whom the individual may direct questions or
concerns;
(iv) is documented in the patient's medical record and
furnished to the individual in person within a period
specified by the Secretary that is as soon as practicable
after the completion of such primary treatment;
(v) is furnished, to the greatest extent practicable, in a
form that appropriately takes into account cultural and
linguistic needs of the individual in order to make the plan
accessible to the individual; and
(vi) is in accordance with standards determined by the
Secretary to be appropriate; and
(D) with respect to an individual for whom a follow-up
cancer care plan has been developed under subparagraph (C),
the revision of such plan as necessary to account for any
substantial change in the condition of the individual, if
such revision--
(i) is in accordance with clauses (i), (ii), and (iv) of
such subparagraph; and

[[Page S3913]]

(ii) is documented in the patient's medical record and
furnished to the individual within a period specified by the
Secretary that is as soon as practicable after the date of
such revision.
(3) Qualifications and selection of eligible entities.--
(A) Qualifications.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term ``eligible entity'' means a physician office, hospital,
outpatient department, or community health center. Qualified
providers include physicians, nurse practitioners, and other
health care professionals who develop or revise a
comprehensive cancer care plan.
(B) Selection.--The Secretary shall select at least 6
eligible entities to participate in the demonstration
project. Such entities shall be selected so that the
demonstration project is conducted in different regions
across the United States, in urban and rural locations, and
across various sites of care.
(4) Evaluation and report.--
(A) Evaluation.--The Secretary shall conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of the demonstration project to
determine--
(i) the effectiveness of the project in improving patient
outcomes and increasing efficiency and reducing error in the
delivery of cancer care;
(ii) the cost of providing comprehensive cancer care
planning services; and
(iii) the potential savings to the Medicare program
demonstrated by the project, including the utility of the
demonstration project in reducing duplicative cancer care
services and decreasing the use of unnecessary medical
services for cancer patients.
(B) Report.--
(i) In general.--Not later than the date that is 1 year
after the date on which the demonstration project concludes,
the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the
evaluation conducted under subparagraph (A).
(ii) Prevention of fraudulent billing.--The Secretary shall
consult with the Medicare Fraud Task Force in the design of
the demonstration project to identify and address concerns
about fraudulent billing of comprehensive cancer care
planning services. The Secretary's actions on prevention of
fraud shall be included in the report under this
subparagraph.
(iii) Demonstration of substantial benefit.--If the
evaluation conducted under subparagraph (A) indicates
substantial benefit from the demonstration project, as
measured by improved patient outcomes and more efficient
delivery of healthcare services, such report shall include a
legislative proposal to Congress for coverage of
comprehensive cancer care planning services under the
Medicare program, developed on the basis of information from
the demonstration project and in consultation with the
Administrator of the Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality, the Director of the Institute of Medicine, and the
Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(iv) No substantial benefit.--If the evaluation conducted
under subparagraph (A) does not indicate substantial benefit
from the demonstration project, as measured by improved
patient outcomes and more efficient delivery of healthcare
services, such report shall document, to the extent possible,
the reasons why the demonstration project did not result in
substantial benefit, and such report--

(I) shall include a legislative proposal for Medicare
coverage of comprehensive cancer care planning services in a
manner that will lead to substantial benefit; or
(II) shall include recommendations for additional
demonstration projects or studies to evaluate the delivery of
comprehensive cancer care planning services in a manner that
will lead to substantial benefit and eventual Medicare
coverage.

(5) Funding.--The Secretary shall provide for the transfer
from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund
established under section 1841 of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395t) of the amount necessary to carry out the
demonstration project and report under this subsection.
(c) Promoting Cessation of Tobacco Use Under Medicaid.--
(1) Services described.--Section 1905 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(y)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), for purposes of this
title, the term `counseling and pharmacotherapy for cessation
of tobacco use' means diagnostic, therapy, and counseling
services and pharmacotherapy (including the coverage of
prescription and nonprescription tobacco cessation agents
approved by the Food and Drug Administration) for cessation
of tobacco use for individuals who use tobacco products or
who are being treated for tobacco use which are furnished--
``(A) by or under the supervision of a physician; or
``(B) by any other health care professional who--
``(i) is legally authorized to furnish such services under
State law (or the State regulatory mechanism provided by
State law) of the State in which the services are furnished;
and
``(ii) is authorized to receive payment for other medical
assistance under this title or is designated by the Secretary
for this purpose.
``(2) Such term is limited to--
``(A) services recommended in `Treating Tobacco Use and
Dependence: A Clinical Practice Guideline', published by the
Public Health Service in June 2000, or any subsequent
modification of such Guideline; and
``(B) such other services that the Secretary recognizes to
be effective.''.
(2) Dropping exception from medicaid prescription drug
coverage for tobacco cessation medications.--Section
1927(d)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-
8(d)(2)) is amended--
(A) by striking subparagraph (E);
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as
subparagraphs (E) through (J), respectively; and
(C) in subparagraph (F) (as redesignated by subparagraph
(B)), by inserting before the period at the end the
following: ``, except agents approved by the Food and Drug
Administration for purposes of promoting, and when used to
promote, tobacco cessation''.
(3) Requiring coverage of tobacco cessation counseling and
pharmacotherapy services for pregnant women.--Section
1905(a)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d(a)(4))
is amended--
(A) by striking ``and'' before ``(C)''; and
(B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``; and (D) counseling and pharmacotherapy for
cessation of tobacco use for pregnant women''.
(4) Removal of cost-sharing for tobacco cessation
counseling and pharmacotherapy services for pregnant women.--
(A) In general.--Section 1916 of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1396o) is amended in each of subsections (a)(2)(B)
and (b)(2)(B), by inserting ``, and counseling and
pharmacotherapy for cessation of tobacco use'' after
``complicate the pregnancy''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 1916A(b)(3)(B)(iii) of
such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396o-1(b)(3)(B)(iii)) is amended by
inserting ``, and counseling and pharmacotherapy for
cessation of tobacco use'' after ``complicate the
pregnancy''.
(5) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
take effect 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act
and apply to medical assistance provided under a State
Medicaid program on or after that date.

SEC. 12. CANCER SURVIVORSHIP AND COMPLETE RECOVERY
INITIATIVES.

(a) Cancer Survivorship Programs.--Subpart 1 of part C of
title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 285 et
seq.), as amended by subsection (c), is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``SEC. 417E. EXPANSION OF CANCER SURVIVORSHIP ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Expansion of Activities.--The Director of the
Institute shall coordinate the activities of the National
Institutes of Health with respect to cancer survivorship,
including childhood cancer survivorship.
``(b) Priority Areas.--In carrying out subsection (a), the
Director of the Institute shall give priority to the
following:
``(1) Comprehensive assessment of the prevalence and
etiology of late effects of cancer treatment, including
physical, neurocognitive, and psychosocial late effects. Such
assessment shall include--
``(A) development of a system for patient tracking and
analysis;
``(B) establishment of a system of tissue collection,
banking, and analysis for childhood cancers, using guidelines
from the Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research;
and
``(C) coordination of, and resources for, assessment and
data collection.
``(2) Identification of risk and protective factors related
to the development of late effects of cancer.
``(3) Identification of predictors of neurocognitive and
psychosocial outcomes, including quality of life, in cancer
survivors and identification of qualify of life and other
outcomes in family members.
``(4) Development and implementation of intervention
studies for cancer survivors and their families, including
studies focusing on--
``(A) preventive interventions during treatment;
``(B) interventions to lessen the impact of late effects of
cancer treatment;
``(C) rehabilitative or remediative interventions following
cancer treatment;
``(D) interventions to promote health behaviors in long-
term survivors; and
``(E) interventions to improve health care utilization and
access to linguistically and culturally competent long-term
follow-up care for childhood cancer survivors in minority and
other medically underserved populations.
``(c) Grants for Research on Causes of Health Disparities
in Childhood Cancer Survivorship.--
``(1) Grants.--The Director of NIH, acting through the
Director of the Institute, shall make grants to entities to
conduct research relating to--
``(A) needs and outcomes of pediatric cancer survivors
within minority or other medically underserved populations;
and
``(B) health disparities in cancer survivorship outcomes
within minority or other medically underserved populations.
``(2) Balanced approach.--In making grants for research
under paragraph (1)(A) on pediatric cancer survivors within
minority populations, the Director of NIH shall ensure that
such research addresses both the physical and the
psychological needs of such survivors.
``(3) Health disparities.--In making grants for research
under paragraph (1)(B) on

[[Page S3914]]

health disparities in cancer survivorship outcomes within
minority populations, the Director of NIH shall ensure that
such research examines each of the following:
``(A) Key adverse events after childhood cancer.
``(B) Assessment of health and quality of life in childhood
cancer survivors.
``(C) Barriers to follow-up care to childhood cancer
survivors.
``(D) Data regarding the type of provider and treatment
facility where the patient received cancer treatment and how
the provider and treatment facility may impact treatment
outcomes and survivorship.
``(d) Research To Evaluate Follow-up Care for Childhood
Cancer Survivors.--The Director of NIH shall conduct or
support research to evaluate systems of follow-up care for
childhood cancer survivors, with special emphasis given to--
``(1) transitions in care for childhood cancer survivors;
``(2) those professionals who should be part of care teams
for childhood cancer survivors;
``(3) training of professionals to provide linguistically
and culturally competent follow-up care to childhood cancer
survivors; and
``(4) different models of follow-up care.''.
(b) Complete Recovery Care.--
(1) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``complete
recovery care'' means care intended to address the secondary
effects of cancer and its treatment, including late,
psychosocial, neurocognitive, psychiatric, psychological,
physical, and other effects associated with cancer and cancer
survivorship beyond the impairment of bodily function
directly caused by the disease, as described in the report by
the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies entitled
``Cancer Care for the Whole Patient''.
(2) Expansion of activities.--The Secretary of Health and
Human Services (referred to in this subsection as the
``Secretary'') shall--
(A) coordinate the activities of Federal agencies,
including the National Institutes of Health, the National
Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Mental Health,
the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Veterans
Health Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality, the Office for Human
Research Protections, and the Health Resources and Services
Administration to improve the provision of complete recovery
care in the treatment of cancer; and
(B) solicit input from professional and patient
organizations, payors, and other relevant institutions and
organizations regarding the status of provision of complete
recovery care in the treatment of cancer.
(3) Improving the complete recovery care workforce.--
(A) Chronic disease workforce development collaborative.--
The Secretary shall, not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, convene a Workforce Development
Collaborative on Psychosocial Care During Chronic Medical
Illness (referred to in this paragraph as the
``Collaborative''). The Collaborative shall be a cross-
specialty, multidisciplinary group composed of educators,
consumer and family advocates, and providers of psychosocial
and biomedical health services.
(B) Goals and report.--The Collaborative shall submit to
the Secretary a report establishing a plan to meet the
following objectives for psychosocial care workforce
development:
(i) Identifying, refining, and broadly disseminating to
healthcare educators information about workforce
competencies, models, and preservices curricula relevant to
providing psychosocial services to persons with chronic
medical illnesses and their families.
(ii) Adapting curricula for continuing education of the
existing workforce using efficient workplace-based learning
approaches.
(iii) Developing the skills of faculty and other trainers
in teaching psychosocial health care using evidence-based
teaching strategies.
(iv) Strengthening the emphasis on psychosocial healthcare
in educational accreditation standards and professional
licensing and certification exams by recommending revisions
to the relevant oversight organizations.
(c) Technical Amendment.--
(1) In general.--Section 3 of the Hematological Cancer
Research Investment and Education Act of 2002 (Public Law
107-172; 116 Stat. 541) is amended by striking ``section
419C'' and inserting ``section 417C''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if included in section 3 of the
Hematological Cancer Research Investment and Education Act of
2002 (Public Law 107-172; 116 Stat. 541).

SEC. 13. ACTIVITIES OF THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION.

It is the sense of the Senate that the Food and Drug
Administration should--
(1) integrate policies and structures to facilitate the
concurrent development of drugs and diagnostics for cancer
diagnosis, prevention, and therapy;
(2) consider alternatives or surrogates to traditional
clinical trial endpoints (for example, other than survival)
that are acceptable for regulatory approval as evidence of
clinical benefit to patients; and
(3) modernize the Office of Oncology Drug Products by
examining and addressing internal barriers that exist within
the current organizational structure.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. I rise to talk about legislation that has been
introduced today. My colleague and friend, Senator Ted Kennedy, and I
and Senator Feinstein are introducing a bill that we hope will help
advance America's efforts to find cures for cancer.
We all know that cancer is a relentless disease. It does not
discriminate between men and women, wealthy or poor, elderly or young.
In 2008, over 1.4 million Americans were diagnosed with some form of
cancer. It may have been you, it may have been a friend, it may have
been a coworker, a parent, a sibling, a spouse or even a child. More
than half a million Americans lost their battle with cancer last year.
During the last session of Congress, Senator Kennedy and I began
working on what we would say would be the next generation of the war on
cancer. Senator Feinstein has been a leader in this area as well. She
is vice chairman of C-Change, which is an organization that is led by
President George Bush--the 41st--and his wife Barbara. Dianne has been
very active in the cancer cause for a long time, having lost her
husband to cancer.
All of us have been touched by it. We know very poignantly what
happened in our body last year; that Senator Kennedy himself was
diagnosed with a brain tumor. We have watched him valiantly fight off
the scourge of this disease. I know in my own family my mother died
from a brain tumor, and my brothers have also had cancer. It is such a
reminder to all of us, especially when we see one of our own family
members or one of our beloved colleagues fighting this disease. Arlen
Specter has had amazing feats of living through brain tumors, and he
has been so valiant. He, too, is one of the leaders in the cause we are
trying to fight today, and that is to win against cancer.
After Senator Kennedy's diagnosis was announced, I stood on the floor
and said I would have an absolute commitment to introduce legislation
with him, which we had already been working on for months. We were
working with many of the groups that have come together to fight
cancer. There are so many in our country that are banding together to
try to put all our resources and all our experiences and all of what we
have learned to work to do that magic thing that will finally bring
about a cure for this disease.
Today, we are keeping the promise we made. We waited, of course, for
Senator Kennedy to go through surgery and to be in treatment before we
introduced it, and he is back with us today. He is part of introducing
this bill today. So we are calling the bill the 21st Century Cancer
ALERT Act. Here is why we must start again and renew our efforts.
Since the war on cancer was declared in 1971, we have amassed a
wealth of knowledge, but our success in battling the disease has not
been as great as with some of the other health concerns we have faced
in our country, such as heart disease. When we adjust the mortality
rate of cancer by age, it is still extraordinarily high when compared
to mortality from other chronic diseases.
The impact that cancer has on all lives cannot and should not be
underestimated. Today, one out of every two men and one out of every
three women in our country will develop cancer in their lifetimes. That
is an incredible statistic, and it shows how important it is that we
get a handle on how we can either find the cure or, the next best
thing, to be able to treat it and be able to live with the disease.
Let me tell you about some of the women who have fought with this
disease. A woman named Elayne in Corinth, TX, is 44 years old and
fighting cancer for the second time in her life. She says:

I would like to see more research and options, especially
for people like me who tend to have few options left as a
stage 4 cancer patient. I think there is great hope in
targeted therapies, and this should be a continued area of
research and development.

The Kennedy-Hutchison-Feinstein bill will do several things: It will,
first of all, promote cancer diagnosis at an early and more curable
stage. We must encourage the discovery and advancement of early
recognition and treatment. One promising research method is the use of
biomarkers.
Biomarkers leave evidence within the body that alert clinicians to
the

[[Page S3915]]

hidden activity that indicates cancer may be developing. Identifying
biomarkers could represent the earliest possible detection of cancer in
patients where it might otherwise be a long time before the person
would see or feel any symptoms.
However, even if we strengthen our ability to diagnose cancer,
impediments remain that prevent many Americans from undergoing routine
screening for cancer. With early screening, the chances of catching the
disease at a treatable stage are greater and improve the rate of
survival.
No. 2, our bill will adopt a cooperative, coordinated approach to
cancer research. By establishing a network of biorepositories, we will
enable investigators to share information and samples. An integrated
approach will accelerate the progress of lifesaving research.
Furthermore, finding cures should be a collaborative goal. Great
research is being done by so many researchers who are not aware of
advancements in the trials. We have the research that might be
concentrated in one area, but people don't have the communication they
need to know what is going on in another area that might be helpful in
furthering the research going on in a different area.
The culture of isolated career research must shift toward cooperative
strides to achieve breakthroughs. We must encourage all the
stakeholders in the war on cancer to work in concert. This is perhaps
going to be a difficult hurdle, but we must do it. If our researchers
are just involved in their own microscope, they are not going to be
able to have the full body of knowledge that might contain that one
thing that triggers the end to cancer as we know it.
Next, our bill will increase enrollment in clinical trials. Clinical
trials expand treatment options for patients while enabling researchers
to explore new methods in prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. This is
so valuable because these are the experimental stages of treatment
where people who sign up--who know there are risks here but are willing
to try--can help us learn what works and what might not work. This is
essential for us to make real strides in this war on cancer.
One woman who understands the importance of clinical trials is Maria
from El Paso. She is participating in a clinical trial, but she says:

Every day we encounter women who are either unaware of the
option for clinical trials or who want to participate but do
not have access to them. It's not right that some of us have
access to the most cutting-edge treatments, while others are
shut out and left mired in a web of confusion.

Less than 5 percent of the 10 million adults with cancer in the
United States participate in clinical trials. We need to raise
awareness about clinical trials so more cancer patients will know they
are available and have the full information of what they could do.
Disincentives in the health insurance market to enrolling in clinical
trials must be eliminated.
Last, as our knowledge of cancer advances and survivors live longer,
we must move toward establishing a process of providing comprehensive
care planning services. There is great value in arming patients with a
treatment plan and a summary of their care once they enter remission.
This can help ensure continuity of therapy and prevent costly
duplicative or unnecessary services.
Together, Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, and I hope this will be
a bipartisan effort to reinvigorate this fight by enacting these
necessary changes through legislation. One of the people who will
benefit from our bill is Suzanne. After 10 years of treatment for
cancer, at a cost of over $3 million, Suzanne came to my office this
week to show her support for this bill. She said:

I don't want my two daughters to go through what I went
through. Screening saves lives and money.

She is right. Another woman who has been in touch with my office is
Jodie. At the age of 36, she was diagnosed with cancer. After 5 years
of treatment, she said: ``It is a gift to be here.''
The Kennedy-Hutchison-Feinstein bill, through screening programs,
research, and clinical trials, will give people such as Suzanne, Maria,
Elayne, Jodie, and many others in our country more time to spend with
their loved ones.
This bill we are introducing today is not a finished product. There
may need to be changes to this bill. It is not perfect. I already have
had some point out the need for us to sit down and try to come up with
the absolute right approach. The HELP Committee will be looking at this
bill. They will be marking it up. We have already had hearings last
year, but there will be more of a look and it will be important that
this happen.

We want a bipartisan and resounding victory. We want this to be a
victory for all of our country--a victory over this disease. It is the
kind of bill that can be bipartisan, that should be bipartisan, and
should have overwhelming support from this Congress and from the
American people.
I am wearing today the ``Live Strong'' bracelet. This is from the
Lance Armstrong Foundation. We all know Lance Armstrong is a cancer
survivor. He is also a hero to many of us because of his wins of the
Tour de France. He is the premier bicyclist in the world.
Unfortunately, Lance is in the hospital right now--or he might be just
getting out. He doesn't have cancer. That is the good news. He broke
his collar bone--in about six places, apparently--and because he has
insisted he is going back into cycling, he is recovering from that
injury.
But we know the grit and determination of this man. After his Tour de
France wins, and setting the ``straight record'' for Tour de France
wins, he came home and decided to take on cancer for everyone. He has
been a role model in showing us it can be defeated, because after his
bout with cancer, he went on to win these grueling bicycle races all
over the world. So he has been a role model in that regard, but he has
also, through his foundation, been a champion of making sure other
people have the same chance for survival that he has had. So while we
wish him well on the mending of his collar bone, we already owe him a
debt of gratitude, and I am going to wear his bracelet as we introduce
the bill today to show what one person can do to defeat cancer.
We can all come together to help Lance get the message out throughout
the world that we can defeat cancer, and no one is a better leader in
this cause on the Senate floor today than Senator Edward Kennedy. He
not only helped craft the legislation--even as he was in treatment he
was making edits to this bill--but he also is another person who has
shown courage, as Lance Armstrong has, by not giving up, by coming
right back to the Senate after his cancer treatments and showing us
that he, too, is joining with Lance Armstrong to make sure everyone has
the same chance he has for early detection and for a chance to live a
full life. That is what we want for every American.
I am very proud to be standing here for Senator Kennedy to say we are
going to fight for this together. We are going to work together, and we
are going to try to have a resounding bipartisan victory on this bill.
Working with the HELP Committee and utilizing their input, we will win
a victory for all Americans. Maybe we will make Americans see that we
can work together here in Washington. Maybe that will be the change in
how things are done in Washington that we have all been looking for. It
would be a change for the better.
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Cardin,
Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Merkley, and Mrs. McCaskill):
S. 718. A bill to amend the Legal Services Corporation Act to meet
special needs of eligible clients, provide for technology grants,
improve corporate practices of the Legal Services Corporation, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the Civil
Access to Justice Act of 2009, which will expand and improve vital
civil legal services to our most vulnerable Americans.
This is an issue that is very personal with me. Before I was elected
to Congress, I practiced law with Polk County legal aid. I know first-
hand how crucial legal assistance is to struggling families who have no
place else to turn

[[Page S3916]]

when they have lost a job and are facing a foreclosure. I know the
invaluable assistance that legal aid provides to battered women trying
to leave abusive marriages while fearing for their safety and the
safety of their children. I know that, without access to an attorney,
the poor are often powerless against the injustices they suffer. I can
honestly say that the work I did with legal aid is some of the most
rewarding work of my career.
The type of assistance I was able to provide needy clients in Iowa
occurs throughout the country every day. Much of that assistance is the
direct result of a commitment the federal government first made over
forty years ago. In 1965, the Office of Economic Opportunity created
269 local legal services programs around the country. Ten years later,
in 1974, Congress--with bipartisan support, including that of President
Nixon--established the Legal Service Corporation, LSC, to be a major
source of funding for civil legal aid in this country. LSC is a
private, non-profit corporation, funded by Congress, with the mission
to ensure equal access to justice under the law for all Americans by
providing civil legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable
to afford it. LSC distributes 95 percent of its annual Federal
appropriations to 137 local legal aid programs, with more than 900
offices serving all 50 states and every congressional district.
These LSC funding programs make a crucial difference to millions of
Americans. Recipients help clients secure basic human needs, such as
access to wrongly denied benefits including social security, pensions
and needed health care. Just in the past decade, families of 9-11
victims, flood victims, and hurricane evacuees have received crucial
legal assistance in obtaining permanent housing, unemployment
compensation and government benefits. Further, members of our Armed
Forces and their families receive help with estate planning, consumer
and landlord/tenant problems and family law.
It is LSC-funded attorneys who help parents obtain and keep custody
of their children, help family members obtain guardianship for children
without parents, assist parents in enforcing child support payments and
help women who are victims of domestic violence. In fact, three out of
four legal aid clients are women, and legal aid programs identify
domestic violence as one of their top priorities. Recent studies
confirm, moreover, that the only public service that reduces domestic
abuse in the long term is a woman's access to legal assistance.
Unfortunately, as the economy continues to wane, those needing legal
assistance increase. Yet, the Federal commitment to legal services and
LSC is not as effective as it needs to be. LSC has not been authorized
since 1981, and since 1995 Congress has slashed funding for legal
services for the poor, from $415 million to $350 million in fiscal year
2008, with only a recent increase to $390 million for fiscal year 2009.
Further, severe restrictions on LSC funded attorneys impede the ability
of legal aid attorneys to provide the most meaningful legal
representation to low-income Americans. The result is that access to
justice and quality representation has become far from a reality for
too many of our citizens.

In many parts of the country, more than 80 percent of those who need
legal representation are unable to obtain it. Nationally, 50 percent of
eligible applicants who request legal assistance from LSC funded
programs are turned away largely because such programs lack adequate
funding. That translates into over one million eligible cases per year.
Bear in mind, to be eligible for Federal legal assistance, one must
live at or below 125 percent Federal poverty level--an income of about
$25,000 a year for a family of four. This means that we are turning
away half of the families in America who need and seek civil legal help
who make less than $25,000 a year. That is wrong and it makes a mockery
of the principle of equal justice under the law.
Unfortunately, a combination of limited federal funding, state budget
cuts and an increased demand for services due to the recession has
exacerbated the problem. As the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme
Court recently noted, legal aid programs have reached a ``crisis of
epic proportions.'' This year, requests for services have risen by 30
percent or more across the country while cutbacks in staffing are
expected to reach 20 percent or more over the coming months.
Connecticut Legal Services expects to lose as many as 150 legal
positions. Boston's legal aid expects to lay off one-fifth of its
lawyers. Two whole offices in New Jersey recently had to shut their
doors. When legal aid lawyers lose their jobs and when offices close,
unfortunately it is our most vulnerable citizens who suffer as their
legal needs go unmet.
The housing crisis highlights this problem. Today, millions of
Americans are struggling to meet their housing needs, including making
their mortgage payments, in many cases traceable to predatory lending
practices. Foreclosures are at a historic high and continue to soar. As
more and more people face the devastating prospect of losing their
home--their most prized possession--legal assistance is necessary to
help renegotiate terms of loans or enforce truth-in-lending protections
in court. The result is that many legal aid offices have seen a drastic
increase in those seeking help. Between 2007 and 2008, for example,
Iowa Legal Aid saw a 300 percent increase in foreclosure related cases.
The Legal Aid Society of San Diego saw a 250 percent increase. Yet,
legal aid is too often unavailable. A recent study, for example,
revealed that in New Jersey, 99 percent of defendants in housing
eviction cases go to court without an attorney.
Given these needs, the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009, which I
am proud to introduce today with Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Mikulski,
Cardin, Kerry, Durbin, Lautenberg, McCaskill and Merkley, renews our
commitment to equal justice for all Americans and will improve both the
quantity and quality of legal assistance in this country.
The bill is supported by, among others, the American Bar Association,
Brennan Center for Justice, National Legal Aid & Defender Association,
National Organization of Legal Service Workers and United Auto Workers.
First, this bill authorizes funding for LSC at $750 million, which is
approximately the amount appropriated in 1981, adjusted for inflation,
the high water mark for LSC funding. That year, Congress allocated
$321.3 million to LSC. At the time, that was seen as the level
sufficient to provide a minimum level of access to legal aid in every
county. Adjusted for inflation, this ``minimum access'' level of
funding would need to be about $750 million in 2009 dollars.
Second, this bill lifts many of the restrictions Congress imposed in
1996 on federally funded attorneys. That year, Congress significantly
limited whom federally funded attorneys could represent and the types
of legal tools these attorneys could use in representing their clients.
Proponents of these restrictions argued that LSC funded lawyers had
overreached and were using federal funds to pursue what some considered
an ideological political agenda through the courts, while neglecting
basic legal work for poor Americans.
I vigorously disagreed with this characterization of legal aid
attorneys and opposed the restrictions at the time; and I continue to
do so. The restrictions have harmed our neediest Americans and in many
instances prevent legal counsel from doing what attorneys are ethically
bound to do--provide zealous representation for their clients. Further,
the restrictions, by limiting the range of tools that legal aid
attorneys can employ compared to other members of the bar, have created
a system of second-class legal representation. That is why this
legislation lifts limits on the legal tools that LSC-funded attorneys
can use to represent their clients--for example, prohibitions on
attorneys seeking court-ordered attorneys' fees, lobbying with
nonfederal funds or representing clients in class action law suits.
With respect to attorney fees, Congress and state legislatures have
recognized that such fees are an important remedy, and are critical in
ensuring that civil rights and consumer protection suits are brought.
As Congress stated in enacting the Civil Rights Attorneys' Fees Awards
Act of 1976, ``fee awards have proved an essential remedy if private
citizens are to have a

[[Page S3917]]

meaningful opportunity to vindicate the important Congressional
policies which these laws contain.'' That is why Congress has enacted
nearly 200 statutes, and states have enacted approximately 4,000
statutes, that provide for attorney fees. The current restriction
preventing LSC-funded attorneys from receiving attorney fees has the
effect of weakening the effectiveness of these statutes.
Lifting the restriction on attorney fees makes sense for additional
reasons. First, because of the restriction, defendants who otherwise
would pay attorney fees are unjustly enriched because they happen to
face LSC-funded attorneys as opposed to a private counsel. Second, the
potential for attorney fees is important leverage for attorneys as they
negotiate settlements, leverage now not available to LSC-funded
attorneys. Finally, by prohibiting collecting attorney fees, Congress
has needlessly limited potential resources that can be used to provide
legal aid to other clients.
The bill also lifts the restriction on LSC-funded attorneys' ability
to lobby with non-federal funds for changes in the law that would
benefit disadvantaged clients. Legal service attorneys are immersed in
the day-to-day legal issues faced by low-income communities and, as a
result, are often most knowledgeable about the true impact of state and
Federal laws on low income Americans. Yet, LSC-funded attorneys may not
participate legislative and administrative efforts unless they are
responding to a written request from a legislator or other official.
When legal aid attorneys' input is requested, the results are
telling. For example, Maryland Legal Aid Bureau was recently invited by
the legislature to testify on an overhaul of state foreclosure and
lending laws. Although the lending, mortgage and banking industries
were well represented, the legal aid attorney was the only person there
representing borrowers' views. While the attorney's voice was critical
in ensuring appropriate consumer protections, it is significant that
that voice was only heard because legislators chose to seek input from
legal aid. Because of the current restrictions, absent an invitation,
the experiences and knowledge of that attorney would be silenced,
leaving a one-sided debate.
Let me be clear, I disagree with those who advocated for and enacted
the 1996 restrictions. However, in the spirit of compromise and
bipartisanship, and with the intent to avoid a repeat of the
contentious debates of the 1990s, this legislation does not lift all of
the restrictions. Illustrative is the present restriction on LSC-funded
attorneys pursuing class action suits. Such cases are often the most
efficient and cost-effective lawsuits, not only for clients but for the
judicial system. As Congress found in enacting the Class Action
Fairness Act in 2005, ``class action lawsuits are an important and
valuable part of the legal system when they permit the fair and
efficient resolution of legitimate claims of numerous parties by
allowing the claims to be aggregated into a single action against a
defendant that has allegedly caused harm.''
When the procedural requirements of State or Federal law are met,
LSC-funded attorneys and their clients, like all others, should be able
to utilize this essential litigation tool. That is why the bill lifts
the restriction on the ability of legal aid programs to bring such
suits. At the same time, again while I disagree, I acknowledge the
concern that led to the restriction--that prior to the restriction some
felt that LSC-funded attorneys were using class action suits to ``push
the envelope'' and have courts establish ``new law.'' To allay this
concern, the bill permits only class action suits that are grounded in
``established'' law. This will enable, for example, LSC-funded
attorneys to represent as a class multiple families who are victims of
predatory lending, but will not permit LSC-funded attorneys to attempt
to achieve a novel interpretation of the law that lacks statutory
support or judicial precedent.
Moreover, again in the spirit of compromise, the bill maintains many
of the limits on who LSC-funded programs can represent, including the
current exclusion of illegal immigrants, with limited exceptions, such
as victims of domestic violence, prisoners challenging prison
conditions, and people charged with illegal drug possession in public
housing eviction proceedings. Also, consistent with current law, the
legislation prohibits LSC-funded programs from participating in
abortion-related cases.
Third, this legislation lifts all the restrictions, except those
related to abortion litigation, on the use of state and local funds and
private donations to Federal funded legal services programs that
Congress also imposed in 1996. That year, Congress determined that for
programs that receive federal funds, the same restrictions applicable
to federal funds apply to non-federal funds a program receives.
The result is that millions of dollars in non-federal funds are
encumbered by the same restrictions that drastically limit the tools
available to legal aid attorneys, to the detriment of their clients.
Through direct state and local funding, money from state Interest on
Lawyers' Trust Accounts, IOLTA, and private sources, over $450 million
in non-federal funds currently is provided for civil legal assistance.
The restrictions place unnecessary and costly hurdles on the use of
these non-federal funds. The only way a program and its donors can free
themselves from federal restrictions is by diverting non-federal funds
into a separate program--with separate staff members, offices and
equipment. This is burdensome and wasteful.

Whatever one thinks of placing conditions on the receipt of federal
funds, states, cities and private donors should have the ability to
determine for themselves how best to spend their money to ensure access
to justice for their citizens. It is one thing to attach conditions on
the use of the federal funds, but to impose conditions on the use of
non-federal funds is wrong.
Fourth, in addition to providing further tools and support for LSC
grantees, better corporate governance--something that is critically
needed--is a central feature of this legislation. Last year, the
Government Accountability Office, GAO, reported on troubling management
practices and lack of oversight by LSC. The reports found that there
had been questionable expenditures by LSC management and that LSC
lacked a ``properly implemented governance and accountability
structure'' needed to prevent problems. GAO included in its report a
series of recommendations as to how LSC should address these
shortcomings and prevent similar problems in the future.
No one was more upset about the GAO reports than I. That is why I
personally made it clear to LSC management, in no uncertain terms, that
they needed to act immediately to address the GAO recommendations, and
why a central feature of this bill is provisions to ensure better
corporate governance. LSC acted quickly to address the issues GAO
raised, and both LSC management and its Board of Directors have
publicly accepted all of GAO's recommendations and have worked
diligently to implement them. Nevertheless, I believe it is important
to lock the recommendations into statute.
Finally, the bill authorizes a grant program from the Department of
Education to expand law school clinics. A recent study found that
students in law school clinics serve approximately 90,000 civil clients
every school year, excluding summer semesters, and provide over 1.8
million hours of legal service. These legal clinics are a significant
resource for legal services. But they are much more. For many students,
these programs are stepping stones towards careers in legal service and
public interest law following graduation. Recent studies demonstrate
that law students who participate in law school clinics are more likely
to work in public service jobs and do more pro bono than their peers
who do not.
We need to do all we can to encourage young lawyers to make legal aid
a career. One important way of doing this is by exposing them to the
challenges, and more importantly the rewards, of representing people
who otherwise would not have the legal assistance they deserve.
Our promise of ``equal justice under law'' rings hollow if those who
are most vulnerable are denied access to representation. As former
Justice Lewis Powell said, ``[e]qual justice under law is not merely a
caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building. It is perhaps the
most inspiring ideal of our society . . . it is fundamental that
justice should be the same,

[[Page S3918]]

in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.''
Legal aid attorneys across the country protect the safety, security,
and health of low-income citizens. When a senior citizen is the victim
of a financial scam, when a family faces the loss of their home, or,
all too often, when a woman seeks protection from abuse, legal aid can
help--but only if it has the funds and the tools needed to do so.
As our former colleague Senator Domenici once declared: ``I do not
know what is wrong with the United States of America saying to the
needy people of this country that the judicial system is not only for
the rich. What is wrong with that? . . . That is what America is all
about.''
That is the aim of this bill. After years of grossly underfunding
this essential program, denying legal representation to millions of
low-income citizens, and denying legal aid lawyers the full panoply of
tools they need to represent their clients effectively, this bill will
fulfill the promise of our Constitution. ``Equal Justice Under Law''
will be more than an ideal chiseled on a marble facade, it will be a
concrete reality for millions of our citizens, who, today, are denied
it. I urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
I am proud to join Senator Harkin, along with Senator Kennedy,
Senator Kerry, Senator Mikulski, Senator Durbin, Senator Lautenberg,
Senator McCaskill, and Senator Merkley on this important legislation to
reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation, LSC. I thank Senator Harkin
for his hard work and dedication to this issue. Along with
reauthorizing the funding for the LSC, the bill also removes several
restrictions that have encumbered the efforts of legal services
providers around the country.
The funding authorization in this legislation will help ensure that
in future years, the Legal Services Corporation, and all of the state
legal aid organizations it assists, will continue the critical work
they do to help lower-income American citizens who need legal
assistance. Similar to the Sixth Amendment's requirement that an
indigent criminal defendant be provided counsel, the voice that legal
aid attorneys give to the less fortunate among us is an indispensable
component of a fair justice system. What Justice Hugo Black called the
``noble ideal'' of a fair and impartial trial is extended through the
work of those around the country who serve their fellow citizens in our
courts. This reauthorization will continue the policy of the Federal
Government to provide assistance to those who seek access to the courts
in civil matters.
As part of this reauthorization, and in an effort to support the
integrity of the LSC, the bill codifies recommendations made by the
Government Accountability Office, GAO, related to the LSC's corporate
governance. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing in May 2008
in part to shed light on these recommendations, and to give the LSC an
opportunity to respond about plans to address the problems identified
by the GAO. The LSC's leadership has been open and responsive to making
improvements, and including these recommendations in the bill will
assist the LSC in strengthening its governance practices for the
future.
This legislation also takes the long-overdue step of removing several
of the restrictions that have hindered legal aid organizations for too
long. But I wish to make clear that the restrictions on both state and
Federal funds prohibiting litigation involving reproductive rights
remain in place. Several restrictions on Federal funds remain: the use
of Federal funds for litigation concerning unlawful immigrants, prison
conditions, and certain eviction cases involving the sale of illegal
drugs in public housing, will remain prohibited. But many of the
restrictions this bill finally lifts are the product of an ideology
long since rejected by the American people. It is time for Congress to
reconsider the usefulness of these restrictions in providing the
services that so many Americans desperately need.
All Americans should understand the effects of these restrictions on
the provision of legal services for lower-income citizens. Chief among
them is the overarching requirement prohibiting the use of non-Federal
funds for enumerated purposes when legal aid organizations accept
Federal funding from the LSC. Currently, non-federal funds received by
legal aid providers that also accept LSC funding are subject to the
same restrictions that Federal funds are. This has resulted in a waste
of resources that providers can ill afford. For example, a legal aid
provider that wishes to use state, foundation, or other private funding
as it sees fit must physically segregate its operations so that funds
from the two sources are administered separately through duplicated
processes. In this era of economic difficulty, the impact of every
Federal and state dollar provided to help Americans must be maximized.
This requirement has resulted in little more than wasted resources.
Legal aid providers are capable of honoring Federal restrictions
without the necessity of such an onerous approach.
The legislation also removes restrictions that currently prohibit
legal aid attorneys from receiving attorney's fees, as authorized by
law, in cases in which they prevail. Contrary to arguments that claim
such a practice would cause legal aid attorneys to act unethically or
out of an interest divergent from the legitimate needs of their
clients, allowing these fees to be retained would help shift the cost
of wrongdoing from the Federal Government to the wrongdoer. Moreover,
allowing legal aid attorneys to retain these fees when merited would
provide increased assistance to the organizations for which they work.
In an effort to monitor the effect of removing this restriction, the
legislation requires all fees received to be reported to the LSC.
The bill removes restrictions on class action suits by legal aid
providers. Contrary to the popular rhetoric, in some cases class action
suits can maximize the benefits provided by legal aid organizations by
allowing similarly situated plaintiffs to pursue their rights in a
single case. The legislation does restrict class action suits to
actions based on established law, and thus is intended to discourage
truly frivolous suits. Additionally, the legislation removes the
restriction prohibiting legal aid providers from lobbying their elected
officials. Allowing legal aid providers to advocate on behalf of those
they serve will advance civil justice issues and raise the awareness of
lawmakers in matters affecting many Americans. And I would remind those
who would disparage this practice on the part of legal aid providers
that many of the financial institutions that the American taxpayers
have recently bailed out continue to lobby extensively in Washington.
If banks that have been bailed out with taxpayer money can freely
access their elected officials, so too should those who represent the
least politically powerful among us.
I hope all Senators will give serious consideration to reauthorizing
the Legal Services Corporation and ending many of the restrictions that
have burdened the provision of legal services to so many American
citizens. Lawyers across the U.S. have dedicated their lives to helping
the least fortunate among us gain access to the courts that serve us
all. These lawyers play a critical role in ensuring that justice is
carried out in a manner consistent with the Constitution's promise, and
when justice is served fairly, it benefits us all. I hope all Senators
will join us in support of this legislation.
______

By Mr. UDALL, of Colorado (for himself and Mr. Bennet):
S. 720. A bill to provide a source of funds to carry out restoration
activities on Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of
the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, I am today introducing a bill
to provide additional resources for use by the Federal land-managing
agencies to restore lands damaged as a result of legal violations and
to promote public education about the use of the Federal lands. This
bill is similar to one I introduced in the U.S. House of
Representatives in the 110th Congress, H.R. 1463. I would like to thank
Sen. Bennet for joining me as a cosponsor.
The large majority of people who use and enjoy our national public
lands respect those lands and facilities and do not deliberately damage
them. They abide by our laws and regulations that

[[Page S3919]]

are designed to preserve and protect these lands and facilities for
future generations to enjoy and appreciate. Unfortunately, there are
some who violate those laws and regulations and in so doing damage the
lands and facilities. Violators who are caught can face fines and
penalties. This bill would direct the Federal public land agencies to
apply the funds collected as fines to help restore the lands and
facilities that may have been damaged due to the violations.
The purpose of this bill is to assist the land-managing agencies--the
Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service in the Interior Department as well as the Forest
Service in the Agriculture Department--by allowing the money collected
as fines to be used for repairing damage caused by the actions that
lead to the fines or by similar actions instead of going to the U.S.
Treasury. It would also allow them to use the money to increase public
awareness of regulations and other requirements regarding use of
Federal lands. It provides that any of the money not needed for those
purposes would be credited to the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury.
Allowing these funds to be used in this manner will not likely repair
the all of the damage caused by illegal activities in most instances,
but it will at least provide some assistance.
The genesis for this bill stemmed from a number of illegal activities
that created significant damage to Federal public lands and facilities.
Let me highlight just a couple of these.
As many may remember, Colorado experienced one of its worst fires in
2002, the Hayman Fire. This fire torched over 130,000 acres in the
watershed of the Denver metropolitan area. It also destroyed 133 homes
and forced the evacuation of over 5,000 people. After the fire, which
was exceedingly hot and fast moving, a major thunderstorm pummeled the
then-barren ground and washed debris and sediment into the Strontia
Springs Reservoir, a major drinking water supply for Denver, hampering
its capacity. Tragically, one person died of a heart attack during this
fire, five firefighters were killed in a car crash on the way to the
fire, and two people were killed during the subsequent thunderstorm and
flooding. It was later learned that the fire was caused by the illegal
actions of a former Forest Service employee. That person was later
fined and jailed. This bill would allow the Forest Service to apply
those fines collected to help restore the lands damaged by this fire.
Other examples involve off-road vehicles. Throughout the west, and
especially in Colorado, increased growth and development has resulted
in an increase in recreational use of our public lands. These
recreational uses have, in some cases, stressed the capacity of the
public land agencies to adequately control and manage such use. As a
result, areas of our public lands are being damaged. These impacts can
include: damage to wildlife habitat; increased run-off and sediment
pollution in rivers and streams,; damage to sensitive high-altitude
tundra, desert soils, and wetlands; creation of ruts and other visual
impacts on the landscape; loss of quiet and secluded areas of the
public lands; and adverse effects on wildlife.

Recreational off-road vehicle use on our public lands should be
allowed to continue, but it must be managed to minimize or avoid these
problems by appropriate restrictions and putting some sensitive areas
off-limits to vehicle use. Again, most vehicle users are responsible--
they stay on designated roads and trails, they are respectful of the
landscape and they endeavor to tread lightly. However, there are a
number of such users who do not obey the rules. Given the nature of
this use, large, powerful motorized vehicles that are able to penetrate
deeper and deeper into previously secluded areas, even a relatively few
who violate management requirements can create serious damage to public
land resources.
For example, in the summer of 2000 two recreational off-road vehicle
users ignored closure signs while four-wheel driving on Bureau of Land
Management land high above Silverton, Colorado. As a result, they got
stuck for five days on a 70 percent slope at 12,500 feet along the
flanks of Houghton Mountain. At first, they abandoned their vehicles.
Then, they returned with other vehicles to pull their vehicles out of
the mud and off the mountain. The result was significant damage to the
high alpine tundra, a delicate ecosystem that may take thousands of
years to recover. As noted in a Denver Post story about this incident,
``alpine plant life has evolved to withstand freezing temperatures,
nearly year-round frost, drought, high winds and intense solar
radiation, but it is helpless against big tires.'' The violators at
this incident were fined. Again, this bill would allow those fines to
be applied to address the specific damage that resulted.
These are but two examples. Regrettably, there have been many more
such examples not only in Colorado but also throughout the west. These
examples underscore the nature of the problem that this bill would
address. This bill would give the Federal public land agencies the
ability to apply resources to recover damaged lands from illegal
activities.
This is a modest bill but an important one. I think it deserves the
support of our colleagues and I will do all I can to achieve its
enactment into law.
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. 720

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND FINDINGS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal
Land Restoration, Enhancement, Public Education, and
Information Resources Act'' or the ``Federal Land REPAIR
Act''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) violations of laws (including regulations) applicable
to the use of Federal land under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture
often result in damages to the Federal land that require
expenditures for restoration activities to mitigate the
damages;
(2) increased public information and education regarding
the laws (including regulations) applicable to the use of the
Federal land can help to reduce the frequency of
unintentional violations; and
(3) it is appropriate that fines and other monetary
penalties paid as a result of violations of laws (including
regulations) applicable to the use of Federal land be used to
defray the costs of the restoration activities and to provide
public information and education.

SEC. 2. USE OF FINES FROM VIOLATIONS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO PUBLIC LAND FOR RESTORATION AND
INFORMATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

(a) Land Under Jurisdiction of Bureau of Land Management.--
Section 305 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of
1976 (43 U.S.C. 1735) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(d) Use of Collected Fines.--
``(1) Availability and authorized use.--Any amounts
received by the United States as a result of a fine imposed
under section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, for a
violation of a regulation prescribed under section 303(a)
shall be available to the Secretary, without further
appropriation and until expended--
``(A) to cover the cost to the United States of any
improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work on public
land rendered necessary by the action that led to the fine or
by similar actions; and
``(B) to increase public awareness of regulations and other
requirements regarding the use of public land.
``(2) Treatment of excess funds.--Amounts referred to in
paragraph (1) that the Secretary determines are in excess of
the amounts necessary to carry out the purposes specified in
that paragraph shall be transferred to the Crime Victims Fund
established by section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601).''.
(b) National Park System Lands.--Section 3 of the National
Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 3), is amended--
(1) by striking ``That the Secretary'' the first place it
appears and inserting ``(a) Regulations for Use and
Management of National Park System; Enforcement.--The
Secretary'';
(2) by striking ``He may also'' the first place it appears
and inserting the following:
``(b) Special Management Authorities.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior may'';
(3) by striking ``He may also'' the second place it appears
and inserting the following:
``(2) Detrimental animals and plants.--The Secretary
may;''.
(4) by striking ``No natural,'' and inserting the
following:
``(c) Lease and Permit Authorities.--No natural''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:

[[Page S3920]]

``(d) Use of Collected Fines.--
``(1) Availability and authorized use.--Any amounts
received by the United States as a result of a fine imposed
under section 3571 of title 18, United States Code, for a
violation of a rule or regulation prescribed under this
section shall be available to the Secretary of the Interior,
without further appropriation and until expended--
``(A) to cover the cost to the United States of any
improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work on the
National Park System land rendered necessary by the action
that led to the fine or by similar actions; and
``(B) to increase public awareness of rules, regulations,
and other requirements regarding the use of National Park
System land.
``(2) Treatment of excess funds.--Amounts referred to in
paragraph (1) that the Secretary determines are in excess of
the amounts necessary to carry out the purposes specified in
that paragraph shall be transferred to the Crime Victims Fund
established by section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601).''.
(c) National Wildlife Refuge System Lands.--Section 4(f) of
the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd(f)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(3) Use of collected fines.--Any amounts received by the
United States as a result of a fine imposed under section
3571 of title 18, United States Code, for a violation of this
Act (including a regulation issued under this Act) shall be
available to the Secretary, without further appropriation and
until expended--
``(A) to cover the cost to the United States of any
improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work on System
land rendered necessary by the action that led to the fine or
by similar actions; and
``(B) to increase public awareness of rules, regulations,
and other requirements regarding the use of System land.
``(4) Treatment of excess funds.--Amounts referred to in
paragraph (3) that the Secretary determines are in excess of
the amounts necessary to carry out the purposes specified in
that paragraph shall be transferred to the Crime Victims Fund
established by section 1402 of the Victims of Crime Act of
1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601).''.
(d) National Forest System Land.--The eleventh undesignated
paragraph under the heading ``surveying the public lands'' of
the Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551), is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 3. PROTECTION OF NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LAND;
REGULATIONS.

``(a) Regulations for Use and Protection of National Forest
System.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'';
(2) by striking ``continued; and he may'' and inserting the
following: ``continued.
``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary may'';
(3) by striking ``destruction; and any violation'' and
inserting the following: ``destruction.
``(b) Violations; Penalties.--
``(1) In general.--Any violation'';
(4) by striking ``Any person'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Magistrate judge.--Any person'';
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(c) Use of Collected Fines.--
``(1) Availability and authorized use.--Any amounts
received by the United States as a result of a collateral
payment in lieu of appearance or a fine imposed under section
3571 of title 18, United States Code, for a violation of a
regulation issued under subsection (a) shall be available to
the Secretary of Agriculture, without further appropriation
and until expended--
``(A) to cover the cost to the United States of any
improvement, protection, or rehabilitation work on National
Forest System land rendered necessary by the action that led
to the fine or payment; and
``(B) to increase public awareness of rules, regulations,
and other requirements regarding the use of National Forest
System land.
``(2) Treatment of excess funds.--Amounts referred to in
paragraph (1) that the Secretary of Agriculture determines
are in excess of the amounts necessary to carry out the
purposes specified in that paragraph shall be transferred to
the Crime Victims Fund established by section 1402 of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10601).''; and
(6) by moving section 3 (as designated by paragraph (1)) so
as to appear at the end of that Act.
______

By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 721. A bill to expand the Alpine Lakes Wilderness in the State of
Washington, to designate the Middle Fork Snoqualmie Ricer and Pratt
River as wild and scenic rivers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
placed in the Record, as follows:

S. 721

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 ``Alpine Lakes Wilderness
Additions and Pratt and Middle Fork Snoqualmie Rivers
Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF ALPINE LAKES WILDERNESS.

(a) In General.--There is designated as wilderness and as a
component of the National Wilderness Preservation System
certain Federal land in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National
Forest in the State of Washington comprising approximately
22,100 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled
``Proposed Alpine Lakes Wilderness Additions'' and dated
March 23, 2009, which is incorporated in and shall be
considered to be a part of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness.
(b) Administration.--
(1) Management.--Subject to valid existing rights, the land
designated as wilderness by subsection (a) shall be
administered by the Secretary of Agriculture (referred to in
this section as the ``Secretary''), in accordance with the
Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), except that any
reference in that Act to the effective date of that Act shall
be considered to be a reference to the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) Map and description.--
(A) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and a
legal description of each wilderness area designated by
subsection (a) with--
(i) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives; and
(ii) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate.
(B) Force of law.--A map and legal description filed under
subparagraph (A) shall have the same force and effect as if
included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct
errors in the map and legal description.
(C) Public availability.--Each map and legal description
filed under subparagraph (A) shall be filed and made
available for public inspection in the appropriate office of
the Secretary.
(c) Incorporation of Acquired Land and Interest.--Any land
within the boundary of the land designated as wilderness by
subsection (a) that is acquired by the United States shall--
(1) become part of the wilderness area; and
(2) be managed in accordance with subsection (b)(1).

SEC. 3. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER DESIGNATIONS.

Section 3(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C.
1274(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(171) Middle fork snoqualmie, washington.--The 27.4-mile
segment from the headwaters of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie
River near La Bohn Gap in NE \1/4\ sec. 20, T. 24 N., R. 13
E., to the northern boundary of sec.11, T. 23 N., R. 9 E., to
be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture in the
following classifications:
``(A) The approximately 6.4-mile segment from the
headwaters of the Middle Fork Snoqualmie River near La Bohn
Gap in NE \1/4\ sec. 20, T. 24 N., R. 13 E., to the west
section line of sec. 3, T. 23 N., R. 12 E., as a wild river.
``(B) The approximately 21-mile segment from the west
section line of sec. 3, T. 23 N., R. 12 E., to the northern
boundary of sec. 11, T. 23 N., R. 9 E., as a scenic river.
``(172) Pratt river, washington.--The entirety of the Pratt
River in the State of Washington, located in the Mount Baker-
Snoqualmie National Forest, to be administered by the
Secretary of Agriculture as a wild river.''.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, and Mr. Schumer):
S. 722. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide
for permanent alternative minimum tax relief, middle class tax relief,
and estate tax relief, and to permanently extend certain expiring
provisions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, there is a storm brewing. This storm is
not an act of God. It is man-made. It is coming to a head next year.
The 2001 tax cut law gave much-needed tax relief to families with
children. It gave much-needed tax relief to families with college
students. It gave much-needed relief to family-owned businesses.
I worked on those tax cuts. I believed in them.
But the provisions in that bill expire on December 31, 2010.
Since the day that we passed that bill, we have passed others. These
other bills expanded and enhanced some of the 2001 provisions that help
America's families.
Next year, all that we have done disappears. American families are
left in a state of uncertainty. This uncertainty undermines confidence
in the Government and the future.
That is why, today, I am introducing the Taxpayer Certainty and
Relief Act of 2009.
This bill would make permanent several expiring provisions that help
families.

[[Page S3921]]

This bill would make permanent the tax cuts for the 10 percent, 15
percent, 25 percent, and 25 percent tax brackets. Without this change,
taxpayers would experience up to a $5,000 tax increase. This bill would
make permanent the lower capital gains rates for taxpayers in these
brackets.
This bill would makes permanent the marriage penalty relief enacted
in 2001. This would guaranty that married couples would not be
penalized when they take their wedding vows.
This bill would also make permanent the $1,000 child tax credit. It
would also make permanent the refundable child tax credit, with a
threshold of $3,000, that was recently passed as part of the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
This is important because prior to the 2001 bill, this credit was
$500 and not refundable.
This bill would make permanent the expansion of the earned income tax
credit. As a result, married couples would get more relief and families
with three or more children would get a larger credit.
The bill would help working men and women by making permanent the
changes to the dependent and child care credit. This credit helps cover
the increased expenses of providing child care during a time when
everyone is struggling to stay employed and weather this economic
downturn.
This bill would also make permanent the increased credit for
adoption. Giving a child a home and love is expensive. Families that
adopt children have a lot of expenses. This bill would continue to give
a $10,000 credit for adoption expenses.
These provisions recognize the increased cost of raising children.
Congress values families and wants every family to succeed.
Another problem that Congress has to tackle every year is the
Alternative Minimum Tax, or the AMT. This tax creeps up on millions of
taxpayers every year. Every year, Congress holds this monster at bay,
making sure no new taxpayers pay this horrible tax.
As a result, the number of taxpayers paying the AMT remains at just
over 4 million. Without Congress's action, 26 million people would have
to pay this tax.
This bill would permanently fix the AMT. It sets the exemption at
2009 levels and indexes it for future years. It also allows the AMT
against the nonrefundable credits.
Finally, this bill would offer certainty on the estate tax. This is
something that I have tried to get done over and over again. The
Finance Committee held several hearings discussing this tax. This bill
makes permanent current law. This bill would set the exemption at $3.5
million, or $7 million for married couples. It would also set the tax
rate at 45 percent.
We have also made some other needed fixes. This bill would unify the
gift and estate taxes. This bill would also allow a decedent spouse to
transfer any unused exemption to the surviving spouse. This is known as
portability.
I believe that this bill is just the beginning. I realize there are
other tax cuts that need to be made permanent. For example, I hope to
address education issues later this year.
But today, let us begin to give working families some shelter from
the coming storm.
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. 722

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE, ETC.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Taxpayer
Certainty and Relief Act of 2009''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title, etc.

TITLE I--PERMANENT ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF

Sec. 101. Exemption amounts made permanent.
Sec. 102. Exemption amounts indexed for inflation.
Sec. 103. Alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable credits.

TITLE II--PERMANENT MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF

Sec. 201. Permanent reduction in tax rates for lower-income and middle-
income individuals.
Sec. 202. Permanent reduction in rates on capital gains for lower-
income and middle-income taxpayers.
Sec. 203. Modifications to child tax credit.
Sec. 204. Repeal of sunset on marriage penalty relief.
Sec. 205. Repeal of sunset on expansion of dependent care credit.
Sec. 206. Repeal of sunset on expansion of adoption credit and adoption
assistance programs.
Sec. 207. Expansion of earned income tax credit.

TITLE III--PERMANENT ESTATE TAX RELIEF

Sec. 301. Permanent extension of estate tax as in effect in 2009.
Sec. 302. Unified credit increased by unused unified credit of deceased
spouse.

TITLE I--PERMANENT ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF

SEC. 101. EXEMPTION AMOUNTS MADE PERMANENT.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``$45,000 ($70,950 in the case of taxable
years beginning in 2009)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting
``$70,950 in the case of'',
(2) by striking ``$33,750 ($46,700 in the case of taxable
years beginning in 2009)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting
``$46,700 in the case of an individual who'', and
(3) by striking ``paragraph (1)(A)'' in subparagraph (C)
and inserting ``subparagraph (A)''.
(b) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to
sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply to section
701 of such Act (relating to increase in alternative minimum
tax exemption).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.

SEC. 102. EXEMPTION AMOUNTS INDEXED FOR INFLATION.

(a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 55 is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Inflation adjustment.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxable year
beginning in a calendar year after 2009, each of the dollar
amounts contained in subsection (b)(1)(A)(i) and paragraphs
(1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(D), (3)(A), and (3)(B) of this subsection
shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year in which the taxable
year begins, determined by substituting `calendar year 2008'
for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(B) Rounding.--Any increase determined under subparagraph
(A) shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Clause (iii) of section 55(b)(1)(A) is amended by
striking ``by substituting'' and all that follows through
``appears.'' and inserting ``by substituting 50 percent of
the dollar amount otherwise applicable under subclause (I)
and subclause (II) thereof''.
(2) Paragraph (3) of section 55(d) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or (2)'' in subparagraph (A),
(B) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (B), and
(C) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the
following new subparagraphs:
``(C) 50 percent of the dollar amount applicable under
subparagraph (A) in the case of a taxpayer described in
subparagraph (C) or (D) of paragraph (1), and
``(D) $150,000 in the case of a taxpayer described in
paragraph (2).''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.

SEC. 103. ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR NONREFUNDABLE
CREDITS.

(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 26 is amended to
read as follows:
``(a) Limitation Based on Amount of Tax.--The aggregate
amount of credits allowed by this subpart for the taxable
year shall not exceed the sum of--
``(1) the taxpayer's regular tax liability for the taxable
year reduced by the foreign tax credit allowable under
section 27(a), and
``(2) the tax imposed by section 55(a) for the taxable
year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Adoption credit.--
(A) Section 23(b) is amended by striking paragraph (4).
(B) Section 23(c) is amended by striking paragraphs (1) and
(2) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--If the credit allowable under subsection
(a) for any taxable year exceeds the limitation imposed by
section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of the
credits allowable under this subpart (other than this section
and sections 25D and 1400C), such excess shall be carried to
the succeeding taxable year and added to the

[[Page S3922]]

credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable
year.''.
(C) Section 23(c) is amended by redesignating paragraph (3)
as paragraph (2).
(2) Child tax credit.--
(A) Section 24(b) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(B) Section 24(d)(1) is amended--
(i) by striking ``section 26(a)(2) or subsection (b)(3), as
the case may be,'' each place it appears in subparagraphs (A)
and (B) and inserting ``section 26(a)'', and
(ii) by striking ``section 26(a)(2) or subsection (b)(3),
as the case may be'' in the second last sentence and
inserting ``section 26(a)''.
(3) Credit for interest on certain home mortgages.--Section
25(e)(1)(C) is amended to read as follows:
``(C) Applicable tax limit.--For purposes of this
paragraph, the term `applicable tax limit' means the
limitation imposed by section 26(a) for the taxable year
reduced by the sum of the credits allowable under this
subpart (other than this section and sections 23, 25D, and
1400C).''.
(4) Savers' credit.--Section 25B is amended by striking
subsection (g).
(5) Residential energy efficient property.--Section 25D(c)
is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of
the credits allowable under this subpart (other than this
section), such excess shall be carried to the succeeding
taxable year and added to the credit allowable under
subsection (a) for such succeeding taxable year.''.
(6) Certain plug-in electric vehicles.--Section 30(c)(2) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Personal credit.--For purposes of this title, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
(determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall be
treated as a credit allowable under subpart A for such
taxable year.''.
(7) Alternative motor vehicle credit.--Section 30B(g)(2) is
amended to read as follows:
``(2) Personal credit.--For purposes of this title, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
(determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall be
treated as a credit allowable under subpart A for such
taxable year.''.
(8) New qualified plug-in electric vehicle credit.--Section
30D(c)(2) is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Personal credit.--For purposes of this title, the
credit allowed under subsection (a) for any taxable year
(determined after application of paragraph (1)) shall be
treated as a credit allowable under subpart A for such
taxable year.''.
(9) Cross references.--Section 55(c)(3) is amended by
striking ``26(a), 30C(d)(2),'' and inserting ``30C(d)(2)''.
(10) Foreign tax credit.--Section 904 is amended by
striking subsection (i) and by redesignating subsections (j)
, (k), and (l) as subsections (i), (j), and (k),
respectively.
(11) First-time home buyer credit for the district of
columbia.--Section 1400C(d) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of
the credits allowable under subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A (other than this section and section 25D), such
excess shall be carried to the succeeding taxable year and
added to the credit allowable under subsection (a) for such
taxable year.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.

TITLE II--PERMANENT MIDDLE CLASS TAX RELIEF

SEC. 201. PERMANENT REDUCTION IN TAX RATES FOR LOWER-INCOME
AND MIDDLE-INCOME INDIVIDUALS.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 1(i) is amended
to read as follows:
``(2) Reduction in rates.--The tables under subsections
(a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) shall be applied--
``(A) in the case of taxable years beginning after 2008--
``(i) by substituting `25%' for `28%' each place it appears
(before the application of clause (ii)), and
``(ii) by substituting `28%' for `31%' each place it
appears, and
``(B) in the case of taxable years beginning in 2009 and
2010--
``(i) by substituting `33%' for `36%' each place it
appears, and
``(ii) by substituting `35%' for `39.6%' each place it
appears.''.
(b) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to
sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply to section
101 of such Act (relating to reduction in income tax rates
for individuals).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2008.

SEC. 202. PERMANENT REDUCTION IN RATES ON CAPITAL GAINS FOR
LOWER-INCOME AND MIDDLE-INCOME TAXPAYERS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Regular tax.--Section 1(h)(1) is amended by
redesignating subparagraphs (D) and (E) as subparagraphs (E)
and (F), respectively, and by striking subparagraph (C) and
inserting the following:
``(C) 15 percent of the lesser of--
``(i) so much of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if
less, taxable income) as exceeds the amount on which a tax is
determined under subparagraph (B), or
``(ii) the excess (if any) of--

``(I) amount of taxable income which would (without regard
to this paragraph) be taxed at a rate below the second
highest tax rate, over
``(II) the greater of the amounts determined under clauses
(i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B);

``(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if
less, taxable income) in excess of the sum of the amounts on
which tax is determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C);''.
(2) Minimum tax.--Section 55(b)(3) is amended by
redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraphs (E) and by
striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:
``(C) 15 percent of the lesser of--
``(i) so much of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if
less, taxable excess) as exceeds the amount on which tax is
determined under subparagraph (B), or
``(ii) the excess described in section 1(h)(1)(C)(ii), plus
``(D) 20 percent of the adjusted net capital gain (or, if
less, taxable excess) in excess of the sum of the amounts on
which tax is determined under subparagraphs (B) and (C),
plus''.
(3) Conforming amendments.--
(A) The following sections are each amended by striking
``15 percent'' and inserting ``20 percent'':
(i) Section 1445(e)(1).
(ii) The second sentence of section 7518(g)(6)(A).
(iii) Section 53511(f)(2) of title 46, United States Code.
(B) Section 1(h)(1)(B) is amended by striking ``5 percent
(0 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after
2007)'' and inserting ``0 percent''.
(C) Section 55(b)(3)(B) is amended by striking ``5 percent
(0 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after
2007)'' and inserting ``0 percent''.
(D) Section 1445(e)(6) is amended by striking ``15 percent
(20 percent in the case of taxable years beginning after
December 31, 2010)'' and inserting ``20 percent''.
(b) Effective Dates.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2010.
(2) Withholding.--The amendment made by subsection
(a)(3)(A)(i) shall apply to amounts paid on or after January
1, 2011.
(c) Repeal of JGTRRA Sunset.--Section 303 of the Jobs and
Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 is repealed.

SEC. 203. MODIFICATIONS TO CHILD TAX CREDIT.

(a) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to
sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply to sections
201 (relating to modifications to child tax credit) and 203
(relating to refunds disregarded in the administration of
federal programs and federally assisted programs) of such
Act.
(b) Modification of Threshold Amount.--
(1) In general.--Clause (i) of section 24(d)(1)(B) is
amended by striking ``$10,000'' and inserting ``$3,000''.
(2) Repeal of inflation adjustment to earned income base.--
Subsection (d) of section 24 (relating to portion of credit
refundable) is amended by striking paragraph (3).
(3) Conforming amendment.--Section 24(d) is amended by
striking paragraph (4).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2010.

SEC. 204. REPEAL OF SUNSET ON MARRIAGE PENALTY RELIEF.

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions
of such Act) shall not apply to sections 301, 302, and 303(a)
of such Act (relating to marriage penalty relief).

SEC. 205. REPEAL OF SUNSET ON EXPANSION OF DEPENDENT CARE
CREDIT.

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions
of such Act) shall not apply to section 204 of such Act
(relating to dependent care credit).

SEC. 206. REPEAL OF SUNSET ON EXPANSION OF ADOPTION CREDIT
AND ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.

Title IX of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to sunset of provisions
of such Act) shall not apply to section 202 of such Act
(relating to expansion of adoption credit and adoption
assistance programs).

SEC. 207. EXPANSION OF EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT.

(a) Repeal of EGTRRA Sunset.--Title IX of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (relating to
sunset of provisions of such Act) shall not apply to
subsections (b) through (h) of section 303 of such Act
(relating to earned income tax credit).
(b) Increase in Credit Percentage for Families With 3 or
More Children.--Paragraph (1) of section 32(b) is amended by
striking subparagraphs (B) and (C) and inserting the
following new subparagraph:
``(B) Increased credit percentage for families with 3 or
more qualifying children.--In the case of an eligible
individual with 3 or more qualifying children, the table in
subparagraph (A) shall be applied by substituting `45' for
`40' in the second column thereof.''.

[[Page S3923]]

(c) Joint Returns.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 32(b)(2) is
amended by striking ``increased by'' and all that follows and
inserting ``increased by $5,000.''
(2) Inflation adjustments.--Clause (ii) of section
32(j)(1)(B) is amended--
(A) by striking ``$3,000'' and inserting ``$5,000'', and
(B) by striking ``calendar year 2007'' and inserting
``calendar year 2008''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 32(b) is amended by
striking paragraph (3).
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.

TITLE III--PERMANENT ESTATE TAX RELIEF

SEC. 301. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF ESTATE TAX AS IN EFFECT IN
2009.

(a) Restoration of Unified Credit Against Gift Tax.--
Paragraph (1) of section 2505(a) (relating to general rule
for unified credit against gift tax), after the application
of subsection (g), is amended by striking ``(determined as if
the applicable exclusion amount were $1,000,000)''.
(b) Exclusion Equivalent of Unified Credit Equal to
$3,500,000.--Subsection (c) of section 2010 (relating to
unified credit against estate tax) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Applicable Credit Amount.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this section, the
applicable credit amount is the amount of the tentative tax
which would be determined under section 2001(c) if the amount
with respect to which such tentative tax is to be computed
were equal to the applicable exclusion amount.
``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
applicable exclusion amount is $3,500,000.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent
dying in a calendar year after 2010, the dollar amount in
subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2009' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.

If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.''.
(c) Maximum Estate Tax Rate Equal to 45 Percent.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 2001 (relating
to imposition and rate of tax) is amended--
(A) by striking ``but not over $2,000,000'' in the table
contained in paragraph (1),
(B) by striking the last 2 items in such table,
(C) by striking ``(1) in general.--'', and
(D) by striking paragraph (2).
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraphs (1) and (2) of
section 2102(b) are amended to read as follows:
``(1) In general.--A credit in an amount that would be
determined under section 2010 as the applicable credit amount
if the applicable exclusion amount were $60,000 shall be
allowed against the tax imposed by section 2101.
``(2) Residents of possessions of the united states.--In
the case of a decedent who is considered to be a `nonresident
not a citizen of the United States' under section 2209, the
credit allowed under this subsection shall not be less than
the proportion of the amount that would be determined under
section 2010 as the applicable credit amount if the
applicable exclusion amount were $175,000 which the value of
that part of the decedent's gross estate which at the time of
the decedent's death is situated in the United States bears
to the value of the decedent's entire gross estate, wherever
situated.''.
(d) Modifications of Estate and Gift Taxes to Reflect
Differences in Unified Credit Resulting From Different Tax
Rates.--
(1) Estate tax.--
(A) In general.--Section 2001(b)(2) (relating to
computation of tax) is amended by striking ``if the
provisions of subsection (c) (as in effect at the decedent's
death)'' and inserting ``if the modifications described in
subsection (g)''.
(B) Modifications.--Section 2001 is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Modifications to Gift Tax Payable to Reflect
Different Tax Rates.--For purposes of applying subsection
(b)(2) with respect to 1 or more gifts, the rates of tax
under subsection (c) in effect at the decedent's death shall,
in lieu of the rates of tax in effect at the time of such
gifts, be used both to compute--
``(1) the tax imposed by chapter 12 with respect to such
gifts, and
``(2) the credit allowed against such tax under section
2505, including in computing--
``(A) the applicable credit amount under section
2505(a)(1), and
``(B) the sum of the amounts allowed as a credit for all
preceding periods under section 2505(a)(2).

For purposes of paragraph (2)(A), the applicable credit
amount for any calendar year before 1998 is the amount which
would be determined under section 2010(c) if the applicable
exclusion amount were the dollar amount under section
6018(a)(1) for such year.''.
(2) Gift tax.--Section 2505(a) (relating to unified credit
against gift tax) is amended by adding at the end the
following new flush sentence:

``For purposes of applying paragraph (2) for any calendar
year, the rates of tax in effect under section 2502(a)(2) for
such calendar year shall, in lieu of the rates of tax in
effect for preceding calendar periods, be used in determining
the amounts allowable as a credit under this section for all
preceding calendar periods.''.
(e) Increase in Aggregate Reduction in Fair Market Value
Allowed Under Special Use Valuation.--Section 2032A(a)
(relating to value based on use under which property
qualifies) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$750,000'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``$3,500,000,
(2) by striking ``1998'' in paragraph (3) and inserting
``2010'',
(3) by striking ``$750,000'' in paragraph (3) and inserting
``$3,500,000'', and
(4) by striking ``1997'' in paragraph (3) and inserting
``2009''.
(f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to estates of decedents dying, generation-
skipping transfers, and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.
(g) Additional Modifications to Estate Tax.--
(1) In general.--The following provisions of the Economic
Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, and the
amendments made by such provisions, are hereby repealed:
(A) Subtitles A and E of title V.
(B) Subsection (d), and so much of subsection (f)(3) as
relates to subsection (d), of section 511.
(C) Paragraph (2) of subsection (b), and paragraph (2) of
subsection (e), of section 521.
The Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such
provisions and amendments had never been enacted.
(2) Sunset not to apply to title v of egtrra.--Section 901
of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of
2001 shall not apply to title V of such Act.
(3) Repeal of deadwood.--
(A) Sections 2011, 2057, and 2604 are hereby repealed.
(B) The table of sections for part II of subchapter A of
chapter 11 is amended by striking the item relating to
section 2011.
(C) The table of sections for part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 11 is amended by striking the item relating to
section 2057.
(D) The table of sections for subchapter A of chapter 13 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 2604.

SEC. 302. UNIFIED CREDIT INCREASED BY UNUSED UNIFIED CREDIT
OF DECEASED SPOUSE.

(a) In General.--Section 2010(c), as amended by section
301(b), is amended by striking paragraph (2) and inserting
the following new paragraphs:
``(2) Applicable exclusion amount.--For purposes of this
subsection, the applicable exclusion amount is the sum of--
``(A) the basic exclusion amount, and
``(B) in the case of a surviving spouse, the aggregate
deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.
``(3) Basic exclusion amount.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
basic exclusion amount is $3,500,000.
``(B) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any decedent
dying in a calendar year after 2010, the dollar amount in
subparagraph (A) shall be increased by an amount equal to--
``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under
section 1(f)(3) for such calendar year by substituting
`calendar year 2009' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph
(B) thereof.

If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not
a multiple of $10,000, such amount shall be rounded to the
nearest multiple of $10,000.
``(4) Aggregate deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.--
For purposes of this subsection, the term `aggregate deceased
spousal unused exclusion amount' means the lesser of--
``(A) the basic exclusion amount, or
``(B) the sum of the deceased spousal unused exclusion
amounts computed with respect to each deceased spouse of the
surviving spouse.
``(5) Deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.--For
purposes of this subsection, the term `deceased spousal
unused exclusion amount' means, with respect to the surviving
spouse of any deceased spouse dying after December 31, 2009,
the excess (if any) of--
``(A) the basic exclusion amount of the deceased spouse,
over
``(B) the amount with respect to which the tentative tax is
determined under section 2001(b)(1) on the estate of such
deceased spouse.
``(6) Special rules.--
``(A) Election required.--A deceased spousal unused
exclusion amount may not be taken into account by a surviving
spouse under paragraph (5) unless the executor of the estate
of the deceased spouse files an estate tax return on which
such amount is computed and makes an election on such return
that such amount may be so taken into account. Such election,
once made, shall be irrevocable. No election may be made
under this subparagraph if such return is filed after the
time prescribed by law (including extensions) for filing such
return.
``(B) Examination of prior returns after expiration of
period of limitations with

[[Page S3924]]

respect to deceased spousal unused exclusion amount.--
Notwithstanding any period of limitation in section 6501,
after the time has expired under section 6501 within which a
tax may be assessed under chapter 11 or 12 with respect to a
deceased spousal unused exclusion amount, the Secretary may
examine a return of the deceased spouse to make
determinations with respect to such amount for purposes of
carrying out this subsection.
``(7) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
this subsection.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Paragraph (1) of section 2505(a), as amended by section
301(a), is amended to read as follows:
``(1) the applicable credit amount in effect under section
2010(c) which would apply if the donor died as of the end of
the calendar year, reduced by''.
(2) Section 2631(c) is amended by striking ``the applicable
exclusion amount'' and inserting ``the basic exclusion
amount''.
(3) Section 6018(a)(1) is amended by striking ``applicable
exclusion amount'' and inserting ``basic exclusion amount''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to estates of decedents dying, generation-
skipping transfers, and gifts made, after December 31, 2009.
______

By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Dodd, and Mr.
Carper):
S. 723. A bill to prohibit the introduction or delivery for
introduction into interstate commerce of novelty lighters, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, I am joining my colleagues from
Maine, Connecticut, and Delaware, in introducing the Protect Children
from Dangerous Lighters Act, a ban on novelty cigarette lighters.
Novelty lighters, also known as toy-like lighters, are cigarette
lighters that look like small children's toys or regular household
items. In the hands of small children they can be very dangerous.
Because they are so well disguised as toys, a child could easily pick
one up to play with it without realizing that it could be very
hazardous.
The result of this mistake can be deadly: In Oregon, two boys were
playing with a novelty lighter disguised as a toy dolphin and
accidently started a serious fire, causing the death of one boy and the
permanent brain damage of the other. Also in Oregon, a mother suffered
third degree burns on her foot when her child was playing with a
novelty lighter shaped like a small toy Christmas tree and set a bed on
fire.
Incidents like these happen all over the country. In Maine, a young
boy took a miniature baseball bat off a shelf at a convenience store,
accidentally ignited a flame and seared his eyebrow. In North Carolina,
a boy sustained second degree burns after playing with a novelty
lighter that looked like a toy cell phone. In one of the most tragic
examples, a 2-year-old and a 15-month-old from Arkansas were killed in
a fire they accidently started while playing with a novelty lighter
shaped like a toy motorcycle.
These injuries and deaths cry out to us to take action and remove
these dangerous lighters from shelves everywhere.
A ban on novelty lighters would require the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to treat novelty lighters as a banned hazardous substance.
That means novelty lighters will not be manufactured, imported, sold,
or given away as promotional gifts anywhere in this country. This
measure will keep novelty lighters out of the hands of children and
prevent injuries like those that have already brought tragedy to too
many families.
A number of states and cities have taken it upon themselves to ban
these dangerous lighters. Oregon and four other States have already
enacted such bans, and thirteen other states are currently considering
similar measures. It is clear that this is an important safety issue,
and it is time for the Federal Government to pass this bill so that
children in all states will be protected.
A Federal ban on novelty lighters has widespread, nationwide support.
Along with the Oregon Fire Marshal, the National Association of Fire
Marshals supports a federal ban on these lighters and has been active
in promoting public awareness on this issue. I want to thank the
Congressional Fire Services Institute for their leadership in building
support for this bill. The cigarette lighter industry, represented by
the Lighter Association, is a partner in supporting a ban on novelty
lighters. Finally, consumer groups, such as Safe Kids USA and others
have endorsed this approach.
Congress should act now to avoid the suffering caused by the
senseless deaths and serious injuries that result from novelty lighters
being mistaken for toys. Dangerous tools containing flammable fuel
should not be dressed up in packages that are attractive to children;
especially when young children do not have the capacity to
differentiate these lighters from common toys. Please join me in
banning dangerous novelty lighters by cosponsoring the Protect Children
from Dangerous Lighters Act.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 723

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 ``Protect Children from
Dangerous Lighters Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Lighters are inherently dangerous products containing
flammable fuel.
(2) If lighters are used incorrectly or used by children,
dangerous and damaging consequences may result.
(3) Novelty lighters are easily mistaken by children and
adults as children's toys or as common household items.
(4) Novelty lighters have been the cause of many personal
injuries to children and adults and property damage
throughout the United States.

SEC. 3. NOVELTY LIGHTER DEFINED.

(a) In General.--In this Act, the term ``novelty lighter''
means a device typically used for the igniting or lighting of
cigarettes, cigars, or pipes that has a toy-like appearance,
has entertaining audio or visual effects, or resembles in any
way in form or function an item that is commonly recognized
as appealing, attractive, or intended for use by children of
10 years of age or younger, including such a device that
takes toy-like physical forms, including toy animals, cartoon
characters, cars, boats, airplanes, common household items,
weapons, cell phones, batteries, food, beverages, musical
instruments, and watches.
(b) Exclusion.--Such term does not include standard
disposable and refillable lighters that are printed or
decorated with logos, labels, decals, artwork, or heat
shrinkable sleeves.

SEC. 4. BAN ON NOVELTY LIGHTERS.

(a) Banned Hazardous Substance.--A novelty lighter shall be
treated as a banned hazardous substance as defined in section
2 of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (15 U.S.C. 1261)
and the prohibitions set out in section 4 of such Act (15
U.S.C. 1263) shall apply to novelty lighters.
(b) Application.--Subsection (a) applies to a novelty
lighter--
(1) manufactured on or after January 1, 1980; and
(2) that is not considered by the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to be an antique or an item with significant
artistic value.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to join Senator Wyden in
introducing a bill that will ban the sale of certain novelty lighters
that children can mistake for toys, often with tragic consequences for
themselves and their families.
In Arkansas in 2007, two boys, ages 15 months and 2 years, died when
the toddler accidentally started a fire with a lighter shaped like a
motorcycle. In Oregon, in 2000, a fire started with a dolphin-shaped
lighter left one child dead and another brain-damaged. In North
Carolina, a 6-year-old boy was badly burned by a lighter shaped like a
cell phone.
Sadly, the U.S. Fire Administration has other stories of the hazards
presented by novelty lighters. When you learn that one looks like a
rubber duck toy, and actually quacks, you can imagine the potential for
harm.
As a co-chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, I am proud
to note that last year, my home State of Maine became the first State
to outlaw the sale of novelty lighters.
Maine's pioneering law stems from a tragic 2007 incident in a
Livermore, Maine, grocery store. While his mother was buying
sandwiches, 6-year-old Shane St. Pierre picked up what appeared to be a
toy flashlight in the form of a baseball bat. When he flicked the
switch, a flame shot out and burned his face. Shane's dad, Norm St.
Pierre, a fire chief in nearby West Paris, began advocating for the
novelty-lighter ban that became Maine law in March 2008.
The Maine State Fire Marshal's office supported that legislation, and
a

[[Page S3925]]

national ban has the support of the Congressional Fire Services
Institute, the National State Fire Marshals Association, and the
National Volunteer Fire Council.
The bill is straightforward. It treats novelty lighters manufactured
after January 1, 1980, as banned hazardous substances unless the
Consumer Product Safety Commission determines a particular lighter has
antique or significant artistic value. Otherwise, sale of lighters with
toy-like appearance, special audio or visual features, or other
attributes that would appeal to children under 10 would be banned.
The novelty lighters targeted in this legislation serve no functional
need. But they are liable to attract the notice and curiosity of
children, whose play can too easily turn into a scene of horror and
death. The sale of lighters that look like animals, cartoon characters,
food, toys, or other objects is simply irresponsible and an invitation
to tragedy.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this simple
measure that can save children from disfigurement and death.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Hatch):
S. 725. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
self-employed individuals to deduct health insurance costs in computing
self-employment taxes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Hatch to
reintroduce the Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2009. This
important legislation corrects an inequity that currently exists in our
tax code that forces the self-employed to pay payroll taxes on the
funds used to purchase their health insurance while larger businesses
do not. Because of this inequity, health insurance is more expensive
for the self-employed. At a time when the number of people uninsured is
growing at an alarming rate, we need to find ways to reduce the cost of
health insurance. This legislation is a first logical step.
Under current law, corporations and other business entities are able
to deduct health insurance premiums as a business expense and to forego
payroll taxes on these costs. However, sole-proprietors are not allowed
this same deduction and thus, are required to pay self-employment tax,
their payroll tax, on health insurance premiums. The self-employed are
the only segment of the business population that is additionally taxed
on health insurance. The legislation we are introducing today would
stop this inequitable tax treatment and allow sole proprietors to
deduct the amount they pay for health insurance from their calculation
of payroll taxes, leveling the playing field for the over 20 million
self-employed in our Nation.
This problem affects all self-employed who provide health insurance
to their families. According to the IRS, there are almost 130,000 sole-
proprietors in New Mexico. While we do not know how many of these
people in New Mexico have health insurance, we do know that roughly 3.8
million working families in the U.S. paid self-employment tax on their
health insurance premiums. Estimates indicate that roughly 60 percent
of our Nation's uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small
business. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, self-employed
workers spent upwards of $12,000 per year in 2006 to provide health
insurance for their families. Because they cannot deduct this as an
ordinary business expense, those that spend this amount will pay a 15.3
percent payroll tax on their premiums, resulting in over $1,800 of
taxes annually.
This problem was identified by the National Taxpayer Advocate in
several of her annual reports to Congress and our legislation to
correct it is supported by over 40 national and State organizations
including the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National
Small Business Association, the National Federation of Independent
Business, National Association of Realtors, the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce. I look forward to
working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
placed in the Record, as follows:

S. 725

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Equity for Our Nation's Self
Employed Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION FOR HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS IN COMPUTING
SELF-EMPLOYMENT TAXES.

(a) In General.--Section 162(l) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (relating to special rules for health insurance
costs of self-employed individuals) is amended by striking
paragraph (4) and by redesignating paragraph (5) as paragraph
(4).
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______

By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Ensign, Mr. Cardin, Mrs. Boxer,
Mr. Graham, Ms. Collins, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr.
Menendez, Mr. Levin, Mr. Carper, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Byrd, Mr.
Kerry, and Mr. Leahy):
S. 727. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
certain conduct relating to the use of horses for human consumption; to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. LANDRIEU. I rise today to introduce a piece of legislation that
this body has seen before, and actually we have passed a version of it
by an overwhelming majority. But we have had difficulty as this bill
has left this body and moved across the Capitol, and the efforts to
pass this bill have actually been thwarted--not so much on the floors
of the Congress or the Senate, but in committee rooms and conference
committees--sometimes out of full public view. It has become an issue
that must be dealt with on its substance, but also the way that
sometimes bills find themselves coming to dead ends, in my view in
inappropriate ways.
The record of this subject has been long discussed on the floor. But
the bill attempts to end the transport of horses for slaughter to
Canada and to Mexico.
This Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, a majority, has gone
on record saying that the practice of inhumane slaughter of these
majestic and very noble animals has no place in America. We do not use
their meat for human consumption. It is no longer used even in our pet
foods. This is not true in other parts of the world but it is true here
in America. So we want to have a better system to handle the breeding,
the raising, and the disposal of horses that are old, infirm, and sick.
But taking a perfectly healthy animal and slitting its throat and then
cutting it up with hatchets and saws and moving equipment while it is
still alive is not what people in America would like to believe is
going on. In fact it is--or was until a few years ago, until some of us
got together with a great coalition and ended the practice of slaughter
in the United States.
There were only three plants operating--two in Texas, one in
Illinois. Those State legislators and the leaders in those States
stepped up and closed down those plants. But the problem is now the
100,000 or so horses out of 900,000 that die naturally every year. We
have about 9 million horses in America, 900,000 die, approximately,
every year. And the great part of this story is that 95 percent of all
horses die a natural and humane death because the owners are very good,
they are very responsible.
Most people do what is right. That is what happens in most places, on
most subjects. But there is always that small group that, for whatever
reason, proceeds down a path that is wholly inappropriate, although
right now legal--we hope to solve that problem--and inhumanely
slaughters horses.
The USDA and our own investigation show that 98 percent of the horses
that are inhumanely transported over our borders now to places that
are, of course, unregulated by our Government and very modestly
regulated, if at all, by the Governments of Canada and Mexico, 94
percent of these animals--92, I am sorry, 92.3 percent of those horses
being sent to slaughter are healthy. They are not sick and they are not
infirm and they are not old.
People say to me: Well, Senator, do you not think we have to find a
way to

[[Page S3926]]

get rid of horses that are sick or too old? I say: Absolutely. There
are humane ways to get rid of horses. But the myth and the lie and the
shame of this slaughtering that is going on is that 92 percent of those
animals are healthy. Many of them are young. Many of them have a great
future. But because there is a loophole in our law right now, they are
being treated in this way.
So I am introducing this bill with my good friend and colleague John
Ensign, Senator Ensign from Nevada, the leading cosponsor, also with
Senators Cardin, Boxer, Graham, Collins, McCain, Lautenberg, Menendez,
Levin, Carper, Lieberman, Byrd, Kerry, and Leahy as cosponsors,
original cosponsors of this legislation, entitled the Prevention of
Equine Cruelty Act.
The way this bill would be put into place, should it be passed and
signed by the President into law, is if a person is found in violation
of this act, they are found to knowingly transport or sell or purchase
a horse with the intent to slaughter it for human consumption, they
will be fined, and there will be criminal penalties associated with
this practice. If a defendant is found guilty, he or she could be
sentenced up to 1 year of prison if he or she has no prior convictions.
If he or she does have prior convictions, the penalty will be
increased.
As I have said, although U.S. slaughterhouses have been closed,
thousands of horses are inhumanely, every day, 1,500 a week,
transported across our borders to this deplorable fate. Sometime horses
are shipped as many as 600 miles with limited food and water. I could
show you dozens of pictures. I will spare those who are on the floor
and those watching from the horror of some of these pictures. But if
you want to see them, there are ample pictures and evidence on the
Internet available for what is a mindless and barbaric practice we want
to stop.
When people say to me: Senator, how are farmers and ranchers going to
afford it? It is expensive to put down a horse. It costs about $225 to
humanely euthanize a horse. It costs $225 to feed a horse for 1 month.
So if you can afford to purchase an animal, if you can afford to
maintain an animal, you most certainly can afford the price of putting
it down humanely, for the work that is done on your behalf, for the
pleasure it has provided you or the transportation it has provided you.
Horses are used in our country for many different and very necessary
purposes. I want to say this has been a long battle. It started many
years ago. But in September of 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld
the Illinois statute that banned the slaughterhouse from continuing.
In April of that same year, the Senate Commerce Committee voted 15 to
7 to ban slaughter. In 2007, in January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit declared the slaughter of horses for food illegal in
Texas, upholding a law that dated back to 1949. And on September 7--you
might have still been there--the House passed H.R. 503, the American
Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. Unfortunately, that Congress adjourned
before the Senate could take it up, and the Senate did, in October,
take up this matter in the agriculture appropriations bill, only to
have it scuttled again.
So I submit to you that there is a broad base of bipartisan support
for this legislation. I submit to you that the practice is cruel and
inhumane. I submit to you that I have every court, both at the district
and appellate level, that has weighed in has weighed in on the side of
our efforts here today. And it is my intention, working with Senator
John Ensign from Nevada, to finally get this bill passed, so we will
have, once and for all, ended inhumane slaughter and created a way for
horses to be put down or to die naturally and to be disposed of
properly in this country, which we think will be a great testimony to
the rising awareness of animal care in this Nation.
Now, when people say: She has gone too far and we are going to do the
same thing for cows and goats and chickens--horses are not raised for
the same purpose as cows and goats and chickens. They are never raised
for slaughter. They are raised for companionship, for partnership, and
that is where the line, I hope, will be drawn.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
placed in the Record, as follows:

S. 727

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Prevention of Equine Cruelty
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. SLAUGHTER OF HORSES FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

(a) In General.--Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 50. Slaughter of horses for human consumption

``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever
knowingly--
``(1) possesses, ships, transports, purchases, sells,
delivers, or receives, in or affecting interstate commerce or
foreign commerce, any horse with the intent that it is to be
slaughtered for human consumption; or
``(2) possesses, ships, transports, purchases, sells,
delivers, or receives, in or affecting interstate commerce or
foreign commerce, any horse flesh or carcass or part of a
carcass, with the intent that it is to be used for human
consumption;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years or both.
``(b) If--
``(1) the defendant engages in conduct that would otherwise
constitute an offense under subsection (a);
``(2) the defendant has no prior conviction under this
section; and
``(3) the conduct involves less than five horses or less
than 2000 pounds of horse flesh or carcass or part of a
carcass;
the defendant shall, instead of being punished under that
subsection, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more
than one year, or both.
``(c) As used in this section, the term `horse' means any
member of the family Equidae.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at
the end the following new item:

``50. Slaughter of horses for human consumption.''.
______

By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 728. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance
veterans' insurance benefits, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Veterans'
Insurance and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009. This comprehensive
legislation, much of which was considered and passed by the Senate in
the last Congress, would improve benefits and services for veterans
both young and old.
This legislation would make several important improvements in
insurance programs for disabled veterans. It would establish a new
program of insurance for service-connected disabled veterans that would
provide up to a maximum of $50,000 in level premium term life insurance
coverage. This new program would be available to service-connected
disabled veterans who are less than 65 years of age at the time of
application. More importantly, unlike VA's Service-Disabled Veterans
Insurance program, the premium rates for this program would be based on
an updated mortality table, meaning that premiums under this program
would be fairer to veterans.
This legislation would also expand eligibility for retroactive
benefits from traumatic injury protection coverage under the
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program. This insurance program
went into effect on December 1, 2005. All insured servicemembers under
SGLI from that point forward are covered by traumatic injury protection
regardless of where their injuries occur. However, individuals
sustaining traumatic injuries between October 7, 2001, and November 30,
2005, that were not incurred as a direct result of Operations Enduring
or Iraqi Freedom are not eligible for a retroactive payment under the
traumatic injury protection program. This legislation would expand
eligibility to these individuals.
This bill would also increase the maximum amount of Veterans'
Mortgage Life Insurance that a service-connected disabled veteran may
purchase from the current maximum of $90,000 up to $200,000. In the
event of the veteran's death, the veteran's family is protected because
VA will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum amount
of insurance purchased. The need for this increase is obvious in
today's housing market.
In addition, this legislation would increase the amount of
supplemental life

[[Page S3927]]

insurance available to totally disabled veterans from $20,000 to
$30,000. Many totally disabled veterans find it difficult to obtain
commercial life insurance. This legislation would provide these
veterans with a reasonable amount of life insurance coverage.
This bill would also increase certain benefits for veterans and their
survivors that have not been updated for many years. The minimum
benefit rate for low-income parents of children who have died during
military service, or as the result of a service-connected disability,
has remained at only $5.00 per month since 1975. This is unacceptable.
Therefore, this bill would increase the minimum Parent's DIC benefit to
$100 per month, and also increase the basic benefit for a parent with
no income to the same level as that provided to low-income spouses of
wartime veterans. In addition, this bill would increase the amount of
pension paid to VA pensioners who receive Medicaid benefits from $90.00
per month, which was set in 1989, to $100 per month. In addition, all
of these benefits and benefits for surviving spouses with children
would be adjusted by cost-of-living allowances so that these VA
benefits would never again become so outdated.
Another provision included in this bill would reaffirm Congress's
intent with regard to who should be eligible for a special monthly
pension. Low income, nondisabled wartime veterans 65 and older qualify
for a VA service pension benefit. Those who are totally and permanently
disabled are eligible to receive a disability pension with additional
monies if they are housebound, blind, or need help in everyday living
activities. In a 2006 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims ruled that an older veteran no longer had to have a disability
rated permanent and total in order to receive housebound benefits. The
legislative history is clear that Congress intended that only those
veterans with a permanent and total disability would qualify for
housebound benefits. This provision would require VA to provide this
benefit as Congress originally intended.
This is not a comprehensive recitation of all the provisions within
this important veterans' legislation. However, I hope that I have
provided an appropriate overview of the benefits this legislation would
provide for America's veterans and servicemembers. I urge our
colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
placed in the Record, as follows:

S. 728

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 ``Veterans'
Insurance and Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Reference to title 38, United States Code.

TITLE I--INSURANCE MATTERS

Sec. 101. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans with service-
connected disabilities.
Sec. 102. Supplemental insurance for totally disabled veterans.
Sec. 103. Expansion of individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits
from traumatic injury protection coverage under
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
Sec. 104. Enhancement of veterans' mortgage life insurance.
Sec. 105. Adjustment of coverage of dependents under Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance.

TITLE II--COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS

Sec. 201. Cost-of-living increase for temporary dependency and
indemnity compensation payable for surviving spouses with
dependent children under the age of 18.
Sec. 202. Eligibility of veterans 65 years of age or older for service
pension for a period of war.
Sec. 203. Adjustments in amounts of dependency and indemnity
compensation payable to disabled surviving spouses and to
parents of deceased veterans.
Sec. 204. Increase and annual adjustment in limitation on pension
payable to hospitalized veterans and others.

TITLE III--BURIAL AND MEMORIAL MATTERS

Sec. 301. Supplemental benefits for veterans for funeral and burial
expenses.
Sec. 302. Supplemental plot allowances.

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 401. Eligibility of disabled veterans and members of the Armed
Forces with severe burn injuries for automobiles and
adaptive equipment.
Sec. 402. Supplemental assistance for providing automobiles or other
conveyances to certain disabled veterans.

SEC. 2. REFERENCE TO TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of title 38, United States Code.

TITLE I--INSURANCE MATTERS

SEC. 101. LEVEL-PREMIUM TERM LIFE INSURANCE FOR VETERANS WITH
SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 19 is amended by inserting after
section 1922A the following new section:

``Sec. 1922B. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans
with service-connected disabilities

``(a) In General.--In accordance with the provisions of
this section, the Secretary shall grant insurance to each
eligible veteran who seeks such insurance against the death
of such veteran occurring while such insurance is in force.
``(b) Eligible Veterans.--For purposes of this section, an
eligible veteran is any veteran less than 65 years of age who
has a service-connected disability.
``(c) Amount of Insurance.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2),
the amount of insurance granted an eligible veteran under
this section shall be $50,000 or such lesser amount as the
veteran shall elect. The amount of insurance so elected shall
be evenly divisible by $10,000.
``(2) The aggregate amount of insurance of an eligible
veteran under this section, section 1922 of this title, and
section 1922A of this title may not exceed $50,000.
``(d) Reduced Amount for Veterans Age 70 or Older.--In the
case of a veteran insured under this section who turns age
70, the amount of insurance of such veteran under this
section after the date such veteran turns age 70 shall be the
amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of insurance of the
veteran under this section as of the day before such date.
``(e) Premiums.--(1) Premium rates for insurance under this
section shall be based on the 2001 Commissioners Standard
Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of
4.5 per centum per annum.
``(2) The amount of the premium charged a veteran for
insurance under this section may not increase while such
insurance is in force for such veteran.
``(3) The Secretary may not charge a premium for insurance
under this section for a veteran as follows:
``(A) A veteran who has a service-connected disability
rated as total and is eligible for a waiver of premiums under
section 1912 of this title.
``(B) A veteran who is 70 years of age or older.
``(4) Insurance granted under this section shall be on a
nonparticipating basis and all premiums and other collections
therefor shall be credited directly to a revolving fund in
the Treasury of the United States, and any payments on such
insurance shall be made directly from such fund.
Appropriations to such fund are hereby authorized.
``(5) Administrative costs to the Government for the costs
of the program of insurance under this section shall be paid
from premiums credited to the fund under paragraph (4), and
payments for claims against the fund under paragraph (4) for
amounts in excess of amounts credited to such fund under that
paragraph (after such administrative costs have been paid)
shall be paid from appropriations to the fund.
``(f) Application Required.--An eligible veteran seeking
insurance under this section shall file with the Secretary an
application therefor. Such application shall be filed not
later than the earlier of--
``(1) the end of the two-year period beginning on the date
on which the Secretary notifies the veteran that the veteran
has a service-connected disability; and
``(2) the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date
of the separation of the veteran from the Armed Forces,
whichever is earlier.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 19 is amended by inserting after the
item related to section 1922A the following new item:

``1922B. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans with service-
connected disabilities.''.
(c) Exchange of Service Disabled Veterans' Insurance.--
During the one-year period beginning on the effective date of
this section under subsection (d), any veteran insured under
section 1922 of title 38, United States Code, who is eligible
for insurance under section 1922B of such title (as added by
subsection (a)), may exchange insurance coverage under such
section 1922 for insurance coverage under such section 1922B.
(d) Effective Date.--This section, and the amendments made
by this section, shall take effect on April 1, 2010.

[[Page S3928]]

SEC. 102. SUPPLEMENTAL INSURANCE FOR TOTALLY DISABLED
VETERANS.

(a) In General.--Section 1922A(a) is amended by striking
``$20,000'' and inserting ``$30,000''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2010.

SEC. 103. EXPANSION OF INDIVIDUALS QUALIFYING FOR RETROACTIVE
BENEFITS FROM TRAUMATIC INJURY PROTECTION
COVERAGE UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE
INSURANCE.

(a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 501(b) of the
Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of
2006 (Public Law 109-233; 120 Stat. 414; 38 U.S.C. 1980A
note) is amended by striking ``, if, as determined by the
Secretary concerned, that loss was a direct result of a
traumatic injury incurred in the theater of operations for
Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of such section is
amended by striking ``in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on January 1, 2010.

SEC. 104. ENHANCEMENT OF VETERANS' MORTGAGE LIFE INSURANCE.

Section 2106(b) is amended by striking ``$90,000'' and
inserting ``$150,000, or $200,000 after January 1, 2012,''.

SEC. 105. ADJUSTMENT OF COVERAGE OF DEPENDENTS UNDER
SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP LIFE INSURANCE.

Clause (ii) of section 1968(a)(5)(B) is amended to read as
follows:
``(ii) 120 days after the date of the member's separation
or release from the uniformed services; or''.

TITLE II--COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS

SEC. 201. COST-OF-LIVING INCREASE FOR TEMPORARY DEPENDENCY
AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION PAYABLE FOR
SURVIVING SPOUSES WITH DEPENDENT CHILDREN UNDER
THE AGE OF 18.

Section 1311(f) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(5) Whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts
payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
401 et seq.) as a result of a determination made under
section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)), the Secretary
shall, effective on the date of such increase in benefit
amounts, increase the amount payable under paragraph (1), as
such amount was in effect immediately prior to the date of
such increase in benefit amounts, by the same percentage as
the percentage by which such benefit amounts are increased.
Any increase in a dollar amount under this paragraph shall be
rounded down to the next lower whole dollar amount.''.

SEC. 202. ELIGIBILITY OF VETERANS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER
FOR SERVICE PENSION FOR A PERIOD OF WAR.

(a) In General.--Section 1513 is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``by section 1521'' and
all that follows and inserting ``by subsection (b), (c),
(f)(1), (f)(5), or (g) of that section, as the case may be
and as increased from time to time under section 5312 of this
title.'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (b) as subsection (c); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (a) the following new
subsection (b):
``(b) The conditions in subsections (h) and (i) of section
1521 of this title shall apply to determinations of income
and maximum payments of pension for purposes of this
section.''.
(b) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply with respect to claims for pensions filed on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 203. ADJUSTMENTS IN AMOUNTS OF DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY
COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO DISABLED SURVIVING
SPOUSES AND TO PARENTS OF DECEASED VETERANS.

(a) Increase in DIC Payable to Disabled Surviving
Spouses.--Section 1311 is amended--
(1) in subsection (c), by striking ``$271'' and inserting
``$325''; and
(2) in subsection (d), by striking ``$128'' and inserting
``$146''.
(b) Increase in Certain DIC Amounts Payable to Parents.--
(1) In general.--Section 1315 is amended--
(A) in subsection (b)--
(i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$163'' and inserting
``$661''; and
(ii) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$5 monthly'' and
inserting ``$100 monthly, as increased from time to time
under section 5312 of this title''; and
(B) in subsection (c)(2), by striking ``$5 monthly'' and
inserting ``$100 monthly, as increased from time to time
under section 5312 of this title'';
(C) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``$5 monthly'' and
inserting ``$100 monthly, as increased from time to time
under section 5312 of this title''; and
(D) in subsection (g), by striking ``$85'' and inserting
``$395''.
(2) Additional amount payable to housebound parents.--Such
section is further amended by adding at the end the following
new subsection:
``(h) The monthly rate of dependency and indemnity
compensation payable to a parent shall be increased by $146,
as increased from time to time under section 5312 of this
title, if such parent--
``(1) is, by reason of disability, permanently housebound;
and
``(2) does not qualify for an increase in dependency and
indemnity compensation under subsection (g) of this
section.''.
(c) Codification of Increase in Rates of DIC Payable to
Parents.--Section 1315 is further amended--
(1) in subsection (b)(3), by striking ``$4,038'' and
inserting ``$13,456'';
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$115'' and inserting
``$412''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$4,038'' and inserting
``$13,456''; and
(3) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$109'' and inserting
``$387''; and
(B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``$5,430'' and inserting
``$18,087''.
(d) Technical Amendment.--Subsection (f)(1)(A) of such
section 1315 is amended by striking ``the six-months' death
gratuity'' and inserting ``death gratuity payments by the
Secretary concerned under sections 1475 through 1480 of title
10 (including payments under section 307 of the Persian Gulf
Conflict Supplemental Authorization and Personnel Benefits
Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-25; 105 Stat. 82; 10 U.S.C. 1478
note))''.
(e) Cost-of-Living Adjustments.--Section 5312(b)(1) is
amended by striking ``the monthly rate provided in subsection
(g), of section 1315 of this title'' and inserting ``the
monthly rates provided in subsections (g) and (h), of section
1315 of this title, the minimum monthly amounts of dependency
and indemnity compensation payable to parents under
subsections (b)(2), (c)(2), and (d)(2) of such section,''.
(f) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
take effect on October 1, 2009, and shall apply with respect
to dependency and indemnity compensation payable for months
beginning on or after that date.
(2) Prohibition on cola in fiscal year 2010.--No increase
shall be made under section 5312(b)(1) of title 38, United
States Code, in the minimum monthly amounts of dependency and
indemnity compensation payable under subsections (b)(2),
(c)(2), and (d)(2) of section 1315 of such title (as amended
by subsection (b)(1) of this section) during fiscal year
2010.

SEC. 204. INCREASE AND ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT IN LIMITATION ON
PENSION PAYABLE TO HOSPITALIZED VETERANS AND
OTHERS.

(a) Increase and Annual Adjustment.--
(1) In general.--Section 5503 is amended--
(A) in subsection (a)(1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``$90 per month'' and
inserting ``$100 per month, as increased from time to time
under section 5312 of this title,''; and
(ii) in subparagraphs (B) and (C), by striking ``$90 per
month'' each place it appears and inserting ``$100 per month,
as so increased,''; and
(B) in subsection (d)(2), by striking ``$90 per month'' and
inserting ``$100 per month, as increased from time to time
under section 5312 of this title,''.
(2) Annual adjustment.--Section 5312(b)(1) is amended by
striking ``5507(c)(2)(D) and'' and inserting ``5503,
5507(c)(2)(D), and''.
(b) Applicability of Limitation to Pension Payable to
Certain Children of Veterans of a Period of War.--Section
5503(d)(5) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(5)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) The provisions of this subsection shall also apply
with respect to a child entitled to pension under section
1542 of this title in the same manner as they apply to a
veteran having neither spouse nor child.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect October 1, 2009. However no adjustment
shall be made during fiscal year 2010 under section
5312(b)(1) of title 38, United States Code (as amended by
subsection (a)(2)), in the limitation under section 5503 of
title 38, United States Code (as amended by subsections
(a)(1) and (b)), on amounts of pension payable to veterans
and others.

TITLE III--BURIAL AND MEMORIAL MATTERS

SEC. 301. SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS FOR VETERANS FOR FUNERAL AND
BURIAL EXPENSES.

(a) Funeral Expenses.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 23 is amended by inserting after
section 2302 the following new section:

``Sec. 2302A. Funeral expenses: supplemental benefits

[[Page S3929]]

2009, the supplemental payment described in subsection (b)
shall be equal to the sum of--
``(1) the supplemental payment in effect under subsection
(b) for the preceding fiscal year (determined after
application of this subsection), plus
``(2) the sum of the amount described in section 2302(a) of
this title and the amount under paragraph (1), multiplied by
the percentage by which--
``(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the 12-month period ending on the June 30
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
``(B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A).
``(d) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary
shall make an estimate of--
``(A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to
provide supplemental payments under this section to all
eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal year in
which such an estimate is made; and
``(B) the amount that Congress would need to appropriate to
provide all eligible recipients with supplemental payments
under this section in the next fiscal year.
``(2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress the estimates described in paragraph (1).
``(3) The dates described in this paragraph are the
following:
``(A) April 1 of each year.
``(B) July 1 of each year.
``(C) September 1 of each year.
``(D) The date that is 60 days before the date estimated by
the Secretary on which amounts appropriated for the purposes
of this section for a fiscal year will be exhausted.
``(e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress'
means--
``(1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
``(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item related to section 2302 the following new item:

``2302A. Funeral expenses: supplemental benefits.''.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 2302A of title 38, United States Code (as added by
this subsection).
(b) Death From Service-Connected Disability.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 23 is amended by inserting after
section 2307 the following new section:

``Sec. 2307A. Death from service-connected disability:
supplemental benefits for burial and funeral expenses

``(a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary
makes a payment for the burial and funeral of a veteran under
section 2307(1) of this title, the Secretary is also
authorized and directed to pay the recipient of such payment
a supplemental payment under this section for the cost of
such burial and funeral.
``(2) No supplemental payment shall be made under this
subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that were
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in an
appropriations Act.
``(b) Amount.--The amount of the supplemental payment
required by subsection (a) for any death is $2,100 (as
adjusted from time to time under subsection (c)).
``(c) Adjustment.--With respect to deaths that occur in any
fiscal year after fiscal year 2009, the supplemental payment
described in subsection (b) shall be equal to the sum of--
``(1) the supplemental payment in effect under subsection
(b) for the preceding fiscal year (determined after
application of this subsection), plus
``(2) the sum of the amount described in section 2307(1) of
this title and the amount under paragraph (1), multiplied by
the percentage by which--
``(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the 12-month period ending on the June 30
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
``(B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A).
``(d) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary
shall make an estimate of--
``(A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to
provide supplemental payments under this section to all
eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal year in
which such an estimate is made; and
``(B) the amount that Congress would need to appropriate to
provide all eligible recipients with supplemental payments
under this section in the next fiscal year.
``(2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress the estimates described in paragraph (1).
``(3) The dates described in this paragraph are the
following:
``(A) April 1 of each year.
``(B) July 1 of each year.
``(C) September 1 of each year.
``(D) The date that is 60 days before the date estimated by
the Secretary on which amounts appropriated for the purposes
of this section for a fiscal year will be exhausted.
``(e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress'
means--
``(1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
``(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item related to section 2307 the following new item:

``2307A. Death from service-connected disability: supplemental benefits
for burial and funeral expenses.''.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 2307A of title 38, United States Code (as added by
this subsection).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2009, and shall apply with
respect to deaths occurring on or after that date.

SEC. 302. SUPPLEMENTAL PLOT ALLOWANCES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 23 is amended by inserting after
section 2303 the following new section:

``Sec. 2303A. Supplemental plot allowance

``(a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary
makes a payment for the burial and funeral of a veteran under
section 2303(a)(1)(A) of this title, or for the burial of a
veteran under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2303(b) of this
title, the Secretary is also authorized and directed to pay
the recipient of such payment a supplemental payment under
this section for the cost of such burial and funeral or
burial, as applicable.
``(2) No supplemental plot allowance payment shall be made
under this subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds
that were specifically provided for purposes of this
subsection in an appropriations Act.
``(b) Amount.--The amount of the supplemental payment
required by subsection (a) for any death is $445 (as adjusted
from time to time under subsection (c)).
``(c) Adjustment.--With respect to deaths that occur in any
fiscal year after fiscal year 2009, the supplemental payment
described in subsection (b) shall be equal to the sum of--
``(1) the supplemental payment in effect under subsection
(b) for the preceding fiscal year (determined after
application of this subsection), plus
``(2) the sum of the amount described in section
2303(a)(1)(A) of this title and the amount under paragraph
(1), multiplied by the percentage by which--
``(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, United States
city average) for the 12-month period ending on the June 30
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
``(B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-month period
preceding the 12-month period described in subparagraph (A).
``(d) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary
shall make an estimate of--
``(A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to
provide supplemental plot allowance payments under this
section to all eligible recipients for the remainder of the
fiscal year in which such an estimate is made; and
``(B) the amount that Congress would need to appropriate to
provide all eligible recipients with supplemental plot
allowance payments under this section in the next fiscal
year.
``(2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress the estimates described in paragraph (1).
``(3) The dates described in this paragraph are the
following:
``(A) April 1 of each year.
``(B) July 1 of each year.
``(C) September 1 of each year.
``(D) The date that is 60 days before the date estimated by
the Secretary on which amounts appropriated for the purposes
of this section for a fiscal year will be exhausted.
``(e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress'
means--
``(1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
``(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item related to section 2303 the following new item:

``2303A. Supplemental plot allowance.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2009, and shall apply with
respect to deaths occurring on or after that date.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 2303A of title 38, United States Code (as added by
subsection (a)).

[[Page S3930]]

TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

SEC. 401. ELIGIBILITY OF DISABLED VETERANS AND MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES WITH SEVERE BURN INJURIES FOR
AUTOMOBILES AND ADAPTIVE EQUIPMENT.

(a) Eligibility.--Paragraph (1) of section 3901 is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)--
(A) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``or
(iii) below'' and inserting ``(iii), or (iv)''; and
(B) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) A severe burn injury (as determined pursuant to
regulations prescribed by the Secretary).''; and
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``or (iii)'' and
inserting ``(iii), or (iv)''.
(b) Stylistic Amendments.--Such section is further
amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``chapter--'' and inserting ``chapter:'';
(2) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking
``means--'' and inserting ``means the following:'';
(B) in subparagraph (A)--
(i) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``any
veteran'' and inserting ``Any veteran'';
(ii) in clauses (i) and (ii), by striking the semicolon at
the end and inserting a period; and
(iii) in clause (iii), by striking ``or'' and inserting a
period; and
(C) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``any member'' and
inserting ``Any member''.

SEC. 402. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROVIDING AUTOMOBILES
OR OTHER CONVEYANCES TO CERTAIN DISABLED
VETERANS.

(a) In General.--Chapter 39 is amended by inserting after
section 3902 the following new section:

``Sec. 3902A. Supplemental assistance for providing
automobiles or other conveyances

``(a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary
makes a payment for the purchase of an automobile or other
conveyance for an eligible person under section 3902 of this
title, the Secretary is also authorized and directed to pay
the recipient of such payment a supplemental payment under
this section for the cost of such purchase.
``(2) No supplemental payment shall be made under this
subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that were
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in an
appropriations Act.
``(b) Amount of Supplemental Payment.--Supplemental payment
required by subsection (a) is equal to the excess of--
``(1) the payment which would be determined under section
3902 of this title if the amount described in section 3902 of
this title were increased to the adjusted amount described in
subsection (c), over
``(2) the payment determined under section 3902 of this
title without regard to this section.
``(c) Adjusted Amount.--The adjusted amount is $22,484 (as
adjusted from time to time under subsection (d)).
``(d) Adjustment.--(1) Effective on October 1 of each year
(beginning in 2009), the Secretary shall increase the
adjusted amount described in subsection (c) to an amount
equal to 80 percent of the average retail cost of new
automobiles for the preceding calendar year.
``(2) The Secretary shall establish the method for
determining the average retail cost of new automobiles for
purposes of this subsection. The Secretary may use data
developed in the private sector if the Secretary determines
the data is appropriate for purposes of this subsection.
``(e) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary
shall make an estimate of--
``(A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to
provide supplemental payment under this section for every
eligible person for the remainder of the fiscal year in which
such an estimate is made; and
``(B) the amount that Congress would need to appropriate to
provide every eligible person with supplemental payment under
this section in the next fiscal year.
``(2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the
Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress the estimates described in paragraph (1).
``(3) The dates described in this paragraph are the
following:
``(A) April 1 of each year.
``(B) July 1 of each year.
``(C) September 1 of each year.
``(D) The date that is 60 days before the date estimated by
the Secretary on which amounts appropriated for the purposes
of this section for a fiscal year will be exhausted.
``(f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress'
means--
``(1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
``(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the
item related to section 3902 the following new item:

``3902A. Supplemental assistance for providing automobiles or other
conveyances.''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs such
sums as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 3902A of title 38, United States Code (as added by
subsection (a)).
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on October 1, 2009, and shall apply with
respect to payments made in accordance with section 3902 of
title 38, United States Code, on or after that date.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Reid, Mr. Martinez,
Mr. Leahy, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Feingold):
S. 729. A bill to amend the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 to permit States to determine State
residency for higher education purposes and to authorize the
cancellation of removal and adjustment of status of certain alien
students who are long-term United States residents and who entered the
United States as children, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
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
placed in the Record, as follows:

S. 729

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 ``Development, Relief, and
Education for Alien Minors Act of 2009'' or the ``DREAM Act
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Institution of higher education.--The term
``institution of higher education'' has the meaning given
that term in section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1001).
(2) Uniformed services.--The term ``uniformed services''
has the meaning given that term in section 101(a) of title
10, United States Code.

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF STATE OPTION TO DETERMINE RESIDENCY
FOR PURPOSES OF HIGHER EDUCATION BENEFITS.

(a) In General.--Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1623) is repealed.
(b) Effective Date.--The repeal under subsection (a) shall
take effect as if included in the enactment of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(division C of Public Law 104-208; 110 Stat. 3009-546).

SEC. 4. CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF
CERTAIN LONG-TERM RESIDENTS WHO ENTERED THE
UNITED STATES AS CHILDREN.

(a) Special Rule for Certain Long-Term Residents Who
Entered the United States as Children.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law
and except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Secretary
of Homeland Security may cancel removal of, and adjust to the
status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence,
subject to the conditional basis described in section 5, an
alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United
States, if the alien demonstrates that--
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United
States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years
immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and
had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of
initial entry;
(B) the alien has been a person of good moral character
since the time of application;
(C) the alien--
(i) is not inadmissible under paragraph (2), (3), (6)(E),
or (10)(C) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)); and
(ii) is not deportable under paragraph (1)(E), (2), or (4)
of section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1227(a));
(D) the alien, at the time of application, has been
admitted to an institution of higher education in the United
States, or has earned a high school diploma or obtained a
general education development certificate in the United
States;
(E) the alien has never been under a final administrative
or judicial order of exclusion, deportation, or removal,
unless the alien--
(i) has remained in the United States under color of law
after such order was issued; or
(ii) received the order before attaining the age of 16
years; and
(F) the alien had not yet reached the age of 35 years on
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Waiver.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the Secretary
of Homeland Security may waive the ground of ineligibility
under section 212(a)(6)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act and the ground of deportability under paragraph (1)(E) of
section 237(a) of that Act for humanitarian purposes or
family unity or when it is otherwise in the public interest.

[[Page S3931]]

(3) Procedures.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
provide a procedure by regulation allowing eligible
individuals to apply affirmatively for the relief available
under this subsection without being placed in removal
proceedings.
(b) Termination of Continuous Period.--For purposes of this
section, any period of continuous residence or continuous
physical presence in the United States of an alien who
applies for cancellation of removal under this section shall
not terminate when the alien is served a notice to appear
under section 239(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1229(a)).
(c) Treatment of Certain Breaks in Presence.--
(1) In general.--An alien shall be considered to have
failed to maintain continuous physical presence in the United
States under subsection (a) if the alien has departed from
the United States for any period in excess of 90 days or for
any periods in the aggregate exceeding 180 days.
(2) Extensions for exceptional circumstances.--The
Secretary of Homeland Security may extend the time periods
described in paragraph (1) if the alien demonstrates that the
failure to timely return to the United States was due to
exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances
determined sufficient to justify an extension should be no
less compelling than serious illness of the alien, or death
or serious illness of a parent, grandparent, sibling, or
child.
(d) Exemption From Numerical Limitations.--Nothing in this
section may be construed to apply a numerical limitation on
the number of aliens who may be eligible for cancellation of
removal or adjustment of status under this section.
(e) Regulations.--
(1) Proposed regulations.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall publish proposed regulations implementing this
section. Such regulations shall be effective immediately on
an interim basis, but are subject to change and revision
after public notice and opportunity for a period for public
comment.
(2) Interim, final regulations.--Within a reasonable time
after publication of the interim regulations in accordance
with paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
publish final regulations implementing this section.
(f) Removal of Alien.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
may not remove any alien who has a pending application for
conditional status under this Act.

SEC. 5. CONDITIONAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS.

(a) In General.--
(1) Conditional basis for status.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, and except as provided in section 6,
an alien whose status has been adjusted under section 4 to
that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
shall be considered to have obtained such status on a
conditional basis subject to the provisions of this section.
Such conditional permanent resident status shall be valid for
a period of 6 years, subject to termination under subsection
(b).
(2) Notice of requirements.--
(A) At time of obtaining permanent residence.--At the time
an alien obtains permanent resident status on a conditional
basis under paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security
shall provide for notice to the alien regarding the
provisions of this section and the requirements of subsection
(c) to have the conditional basis of such status removed.
(B) Effect of failure to provide notice.--The failure of
the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide a notice under
this paragraph--
(i) shall not affect the enforcement of the provisions of
this Act with respect to the alien; and
(ii) shall not give rise to any private right of action by
the alien.
(b) Termination of Status.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
terminate the conditional permanent resident status of any
alien who obtained such status under this Act, if the
Secretary determines that the alien--
(A) ceases to meet the requirements of subparagraph (B) or
(C) of section 4(a)(1);
(B) has become a public charge; or
(C) has received a dishonorable or other than honorable
discharge from the uniformed services.
(2) Return to previous immigration status.--Any alien whose
conditional permanent resident status is terminated under
paragraph (1) shall return to the immigration status the
alien had immediately prior to receiving conditional
permanent resident status under this Act.
(c) Requirements of Timely Petition for Removal of
Condition.--
(1) In general.--In order for the conditional basis of
permanent resident status obtained by an alien under
subsection (a) to be removed, the alien must file with the
Secretary of Homeland Security, in accordance with paragraph
(3), a petition which requests the removal of such
conditional basis and which provides, under penalty of
perjury, the facts and information so that the Secretary may
make the determination described in paragraph (2)(A).
(2) Adjudication of petition to remove condition.--
(A) In general.--If a petition is filed in accordance with
paragraph (1) for an alien, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall make a determination as to whether the alien
meets the requirements set out in subparagraphs (A) through
(E) of subsection (d)(1).
(B) Removal of conditional basis if favorable
determination.--If the Secretary determines that the alien
meets such requirements, the Secretary shall notify the alien
of such determination and immediately remove the conditional
basis of the status of the alien.
(C) Termination if adverse determination.--If the Secretary
determines that the alien does not meet such requirements,
the Secretary shall notify the alien of such determination
and terminate the conditional permanent resident status of
the alien as of the date of the determination.
(3) Time to file petition.--An alien may petition to remove
the conditional basis to lawful resident status during the
period beginning 180 days before and ending 2 years after
either the date that is 6 years after the date of the
granting of conditional permanent resident status or any
other expiration date of the conditional permanent resident
status as extended by the Secretary of Homeland Security in
accordance with this Act. The alien shall be deemed in
conditional permanent resident status in the United States
during the period in which the petition is pending.
(d) Details of Petition.--
(1) Contents of petition.--Each petition for an alien under
subsection (c)(1) shall contain information to permit the
Secretary of Homeland Security to determine whether each of
the following requirements is met:
(A) The alien has demonstrated good moral character during
the entire period the alien has been a conditional permanent
resident.
(B) The alien is in compliance with section 4(a)(1)(C).
(C) The alien has not abandoned the alien's residence in
the United States. The Secretary shall presume that the alien
has abandoned such residence if the alien is absent from the
United States for more than 365 days, in the aggregate,
during the period of conditional residence, unless the alien
demonstrates that alien has not abandoned the alien's
residence. An alien who is absent from the United States due
to active service in the uniformed services has not abandoned
the alien's residence in the United States during the period
of such service.
(D) The alien has completed at least 1 of the following:
(i) The alien has acquired a degree from an institution of
higher education in the United States or has completed at
least 2 years, in good standing, in a program for a
bachelor's degree or higher degree in the United States.
(ii) The alien has served in the uniformed services for at
least 2 years and, if discharged, has received an honorable
discharge.
(E) The alien has provided a list of each secondary school
(as that term is defined in section 9101 of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7801)) that
the alien attended in the United States.
(2) Hardship exception.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security may, in
the Secretary's discretion, remove the conditional status of
an alien if the alien--
(i) satisfies the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B),
and (C) of paragraph (1);
(ii) demonstrates compelling circumstances for the
inability to complete the requirements described in paragraph
(1)(D); and
(iii) demonstrates that the alien's removal from the United
States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to the alien or the alien's spouse, parent, or child
who is a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United
States.
(B) Extension.--Upon a showing of good cause, the Secretary
of Homeland Security may extend the period of conditional
resident status for the purpose of completing the
requirements described in paragraph (1)(D).
(e) Treatment of Period for Purposes of Naturalization.--
For purposes of title III of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), in the case of an alien who is
in the United States as a lawful permanent resident on a
conditional basis under this section, the alien shall be
considered to have been admitted as an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence and to be in the United
States as an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for
permanent residence. However, the conditional basis must be
removed before the alien may apply for naturalization.

SEC. 6. RETROACTIVE BENEFITS UNDER THIS ACT.

If, on the date of enactment of this Act, an alien has
satisfied all the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through
(E) of section 4(a)(1) and section 5(d)(1)(D), the Secretary
of Homeland Security may adjust the status of the alien to
that of a conditional resident in accordance with section 4.
The alien may petition for removal of such condition at the
end of the conditional residence period in accordance with
section 5(c) if the alien has met the requirements of
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of section 5(d)(1) during the
entire period of conditional residence.

SEC. 7. EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
have exclusive jurisdiction to determine eligibility for
relief under this Act, except where the alien has been placed
into deportation, exclusion, or removal proceedings either
prior to or after filing an application for relief under this
Act, in which case the Attorney General shall have exclusive
jurisdiction and shall assume

[[Page S3932]]

all the powers and duties of the Secretary until proceedings
are terminated, or if a final order of deportation,
exclusion, or removal is entered the Secretary shall resume
all powers and duties delegated to the Secretary under this
Act.
(b) Stay of Removal of Certain Aliens Enrolled in Primary
or Secondary School.--The Attorney General shall stay the
removal proceedings of any alien who--
(1) meets all the requirements of subparagraphs (A), (B),
(C), and (E) of section 4(a)(1);
(2) is at least 12 years of age; and
(3) is enrolled full time in a primary or secondary school.
(c) Employment.--An alien whose removal is stayed pursuant
to subsection (b) may be engaged in employment in the United
States consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act (29
U.S.C. 201 et seq.) and State and local laws governing
minimum age for employment.
(d) Lift of Stay.--The Attorney General shall lift the stay
granted pursuant to subsection (b) if the alien--
(1) is no longer enrolled in a primary or secondary school;
or
(2) ceases to meet the requirements of subsection (b)(1).

SEC. 8. PENALTIES FOR FALSE STATEMENTS IN APPLICATION.

Whoever files an application for relief under this Act and
willfully and knowingly falsifies, misrepresents, or conceals
a material fact or makes any false or fraudulent statement or
representation, or makes or uses any false writing or
document knowing the same to contain any false or fraudulent
statement or entry, shall be fined in accordance with title
18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than 5 years,
or both.

SEC. 9. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION.

(a) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (b), no
officer or employee of the United States may--
(1) use the information furnished by the applicant pursuant
to an application filed under this Act to initiate removal
proceedings against any persons identified in the
application;
(2) make any publication whereby the information furnished
by any particular individual pursuant to an application under
this Act can be identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than an officer or employee of the
United States Government or, in the case of applications
filed under this Act with a designated entity, that
designated entity, to examine applications filed under this
Act.
(b) Required Disclosure.--The Attorney General or the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide the information
furnished under this section, and any other information
derived from such furnished information, to--
(1) a duly recognized law enforcement entity in connection
with an investigation or prosecution of an offense described
in paragraph (2) or (3) of section 212(a) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)), when such information
is requested in writing by such entity; or
(2) an official coroner for purposes of affirmatively
identifying a deceased individual (whether or not such
individual is deceased as a result of a crime).
(c) Penalty.--Whoever knowingly uses, publishes, or permits
information to be examined in violation of this section shall
be fined not more than $10,000.

SEC. 10. EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS; PROHIBITION ON
FEES.

Regulations promulgated under this Act shall provide that
applications under this Act will be considered on an
expedited basis and without a requirement for the payment by
the applicant of any additional fee for such expedited
processing.

SEC. 11. HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.

Notwithstanding any provision of the Higher Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.), with respect to assistance
provided under title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965
(20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.), an alien who adjusts status to that
of a lawful permanent resident under this Act shall be
eligible only for the following assistance under such title:
(1) Student loans under parts B, D, and E of such title IV
(20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.),
subject to the requirements of such parts.
(2) Federal work-study programs under part C of such title
IV (42 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.), subject to the requirements of
such part.
(3) Services under such title IV (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.),
subject to the requirements for such services.

SEC. 12. GAO REPORT.

Not later than seven years after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall
submit a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the
Senate and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives setting forth--
(1) the number of aliens who were eligible for cancellation
of removal and adjustment of status under section 4(a);
(2) the number of aliens who applied for adjustment of
status under section 4(a);
(3) the number of aliens who were granted adjustment of
status under section 4(a); and
(4) the number of aliens whose conditional permanent
resident status was removed under section 5.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Durbin once
again to introduce the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien
Minors Act, DREAM. This legislation has the potential to change the
lives of many young people in an extraordinary and positive way and is
an investment in America's future.
The Senate has attempted several times to pass the DREAM Act, but the
bitter politics of immigration have stalled our best efforts in the
past. I appreciate Senator Durbin's persistence, and I share his
commitment to the young people whose lives this bill would profoundly
improve. Those who came to the U.S. as minors under the care of their
parents are not guilty of their parents' transgressions. For many, the
U.S. is the only home they know. We will further the Federal policy
that supports educational opportunity and military service if we
exercise the forbearance to defer rigid application of our laws upon
those who have the potential to be citizens that will move our country
forward. We all recognize the value of higher education and service to
our country. To serve these Federal policy interests by giving legal
stability and opportunity to young people caught in the limbo of our
laws through no fault of their own is the right thing to do.
As Congress and the administration work through the immediate
challenges that lie ahead, and begin to restore the faith of Americans
in our economy and our government, I hope Congress will not shy away
from other important issues such as immigration reform. When our
Federal Government confronts the issue of immigration, I hope we will
see not only the opportunity to correct what is wrong, but also to
improve and build upon what is good and just about the traditions of
welcoming and refuge that define our immigration system. The promise
this bill holds for so many young people will reinforce the spirit that
underlies the history of American immigration and the diversity that
has moved us so far.
I thank Senator Durbin and hope all Senators will join us in support
of this legislation.
______

By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Schumer,
Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Casey):
S. 732. A bill to amend the National Dam Safety Program Act to
establish a program to provide grant assistance to States for the
rehabilitation and repair of deficient dams; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition to comment on my
cosponsorship of the Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2009 and
clarify my intent with respect to Davis-Bacon prevailing wage
requirements under this bill.
This bill would establish a grant program within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency to provide assistance to states for the
rehabilitation of publicly-owned dams that fail to meet minimum safety
standards. I am cosponsoring this bill because it is my understanding
that there are at least 3,040 deficient dams in the United States,
including 369 in Pennsylvania. These dams pose an unacceptable level of
risk to the public and should be rehabilitated expeditiously.
I cosponsored similar legislation in the 110th Congress, however, I
am advised that it was not considered by the Committee on Environment
and Public Works due to concerns over language in the bill which would
have required that dam repair work funded under the act adhere to
Davis-Bacon locally prevailing wage requirements. As a result, this
year's version of the bill, as introduced, does not contain Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage requirements out of deference to the Ranking Member of
the Committee. However, I am a strong supporter of Davis-Bacon, having
voted in favor of preserving it 23 separate times on the Senate floor
since 1982. Accordingly, it is my intention to work to reinsert Davis-
Bacon requirements into the bill either in committee or on the Senate
floor.

____________________