[Pages S5270-S5280]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

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

S. 3517

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Claims
Processing Improvement Act of 2010''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--RATING OF SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES MATTERS

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

TITLE II--ADJUDICATION AND APPEAL MATTERS

Sec. 201. Partial adjudication of claims for disability compensation
consisting of multiple issues one or more of which can be
quickly adjudicated.

[[Page S5271]]

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

TITLE I--RATING OF SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES MATTERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(D) Mechanisms for the assignment of ratings of disability
in certain cases as follows:
(i) If the veteran has an active musculoskeletal cancer or
other active musculoskeletal disability likely to result in
death, a rating of 100 percent.
(ii) If the veteran would qualify for a temporary
disability rating under section 1156 of title 38, United
States Code, the rating provided under that section.
(iii) If the veteran would qualify for a temporary
disability rating under any regulations prescribed by the
Secretary not provided for under this section, the rating
assigned under such regulations.
(E) Such other mechanisms as the Secretary considers
appropriate for the pilot program.
(5) Forms for recording residual functional capacity
assessments.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall establish one or more
functional capacity assessment forms to be used in performing
assessments with the instrument required by paragraph (4)(B).
(B) Availability.--The Secretary shall make the forms
established under subparagraph (A) available to the public in
an electronic format for use by any physician or other
medical provider in assessing the residual functional
capacity related to disabilities of the musculoskeletal
system.
(6) Exemption from apa.--The establishment of the
alternative schedule required by paragraph (1) shall not be
subject to the requirements of subchapter II of chapter 5,
and chapter 7, of title 5, United States Code (commonly known
as the ``Administrative Procedure Act'').
(c) Application of Alternative Schedule.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the pilot program, the
Secretary shall apply the alternative schedule for rating
disabilities established under subsection (b) to veterans
described in paragraph (3) who have a condition of the
musculoskeletal system that has been determined to be a
disability incurred or aggravated during military service to
determine the rating to be assigned for such disability.
(2) Application through regional offices.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall apply the alternative
schedule for rating service-connected disabilities under this
subsection through not fewer than six and not more than ten
regional offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs
selected by the Secretary for purposes of the pilot program.
(B) Diversity of selection.--In selecting regional offices
under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall select--
(i) at least one regional office considered by the
Secretary to be a small office;
(ii) at least one regional office considered by the
Secretary to be a large office; and
(iii) regional offices representing a variety of geographic
settings.
(3) Covered veterans.--Veterans described in this paragraph
are veterans who--
(A) submit to the Secretary more than one year after their
date of discharge or release from the active military, naval,
or air service an original claim for benefits under the laws
administered by the Secretary;
(B) allege in the claim described in subparagraph (A) the
existence of a condition of the musculoskeletal system that
was incurred or aggravated in such military, naval, or air
service;
(C) file such claim with a regional office of the
Department with original jurisdiction of the claim that is
participating in the pilot program; and
(D) have not expressly declined participation in the pilot
program.
(4) Relation to combined ratings table.--A rating assigned
for a musculoskeletal service-connected disability under the
pilot program shall be determined without regard to the
Combined Ratings Table in title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, except that in determining the final rating of
all service-connected disabilities, the rating for
musculoskeletal disabilities as determined under the pilot
program shall be combined with any other disabilities using
such table.
(5) Treatment of disability ratings for loss of bodily
integrity.--Compensation under laws administered by the
Secretary for a disability receiving a disability rating
under the schedule established under subsection (b)(1) shall
be, as applicable, in addition to or consistent with any
compensation otherwise provided under subsections (k) through
(s) of section 1114 of title 38, United States Code.
(d) Limitations on Denial of Service Connection.--During
the pilot program, the Secretary may not determine a
musculoskeletal

[[Page S5272]]

condition of a veteran to be not service-connected for
purposes of the veteran's participation in the pilot program
unless the Secretary--
(1) obtains, or receives a report of, a medical examination
of the veteran which--
(A) includes a brief history of the veteran's military
service relevant to the condition;
(B) identifies the diagnosed musculoskeletal disabilities
in accordance with the classification required by subsection
(b)(4)(A); and
(C) describes the functional limitations of such
conditions, and if applicable, any secondary conditions
related to such alleged conditions or any non-service
connected disability aggravated by the alleged conditions;
and
(2) obtains or receives a medical opinion on--
(A) the nexus between any diagnosed musculoskeletal
condition alleged to be service-connected and the active
military, naval, or air service of the veteran; and
(B) if applicable, the relationship between any service-
connected disabilities of the veteran and any secondary
disabilities related to such disabilities or any non-service
connected disability aggravated by the alleged conditions.
(e) Records.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall maintain for purposes
of the pilot program a separate searchable electronic file on
each veteran covered by the pilot program.
(2) Elements.--The electronic file maintained with respect
to a veteran under paragraph (1) shall include for the
following:
(A) An index of the documents contained in the electronic
file.
(B) The claim of the veteran for benefits under the laws
administered by the Secretary, including any reapplication
with respect to such claim.
(C) The service treatment records of the veteran from
medical care received while serving in the active military,
naval, or air service and any other medical treatment records
of the veteran from service during periods of active or
inactive duty for training.
(D) The personnel records of service of the veteran--
(i) in the active military, naval, or air service; and
(ii) in the reserve components of the Armed Forces.
(E) Such other private or public medical records of the
veteran as the Secretary considers appropriate.
(F) Records of any medical examinations and medical
opinions on the residual functional capacity of the
musculoskeletal system of the veteran, including any
examinations and opinions obtained under subsection (d).
(G) Records of any medical examinations and medical
opinions concerning any non-musculoskeletal disabilities
claimed by the veteran as service-connected.
(H) Any non-medical evidence applicable to the claim.
(I) Current information and evidence on any dependents of
the veteran for purposes of the laws administered by the
Secretary.
(J) Ratings and decisions of the Secretary with respect to
the claims of the veteran.
(K) Information concerning the amount of compensation paid
to the veteran under laws administered by the Secretary.
(L) Any notices or correspondence sent by the Secretary to
the veteran or any correspondence submitted by the veteran to
the Secretary in connection with the claim that does not
contain evidence or information applicable to the claims of
the veteran.
(3) Organization.--Each file required by paragraph (1)
shall be stored or displayed with separate sections for each
element required under paragraph (2).
(f) Termination of Application.--The Secretary shall cease
the application to veterans under subsection (c) of the
alternative schedule for rating service-connected
disabilities under subsection (b) for purposes of the pilot
program on the date that is 4 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
(g) Preservation of Ratings.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a
disability rating assigned under the alternative schedule
established under subsection (b) shall not be reduced during
or after termination of the pilot program absent evidence of
clear and unmistakable error in the original assignment of
the rating or evidence of an improvement in the
musculoskeletal disability manifested by less frequent, less
severe, or shorter duration of symptoms measured over a
period of at least six months in the year prior to any re-
evaluation.
(2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to ratings
assigned for temporary periods as provided in subsection
(b)(4)(D).
(h) Relationship to Other Provisions of Law Administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.--Except as otherwise
specifically provided in this section, all applicable
provisions of law administered by the Secretary shall apply
to decisions of the Secretary made under the pilot program.
(i) Interim Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 300 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives an interim report on the pilot program.
(2) Elements.--The interim report required by paragraph (1)
shall include the following:
(A) A description of the alternative schedule for rating
service-connected disabilities established under subsection
(b).
(B) The rationale for the alternative schedule as described
under subparagraph (A).
(C) A description of the policies and procedures
established under the pilot program.
(j) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years and 180 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate
and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of
Representatives a report on the pilot program.
(2) Elements.--The report required by paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A copy of the alternative schedule for rating service-
connected disabilities established under subsection (b) and
any changes made to such schedule during the pilot program.
(B) A description and assessment of the application of the
alternative schedule for rating service-connected
disabilities of veterans, including--
(i) the total number of veterans to which the alternative
schedule was applied;
(ii) the total number of veterans determined to have a
service-connected disability consisting of a condition of the
musculoskeletal system; and
(iii) the ratings of disability assigned to veterans
described in clause (ii), set forth by percentage of
disability assigned.
(C) An assessment of the feasibility and advisability of
applying the alternative schedule for rating service-
connected disabilities to additional claimants.
(D) A comparison of a representative sample of decisions
rendered by different regional offices for similar
disabilities participating in the pilot program.
(E) The number of appeals filed for claims adjudicated
under the pilot program.
(F) An assessment of the effectiveness of the electronic
file maintained under subsection (e) in--
(i) the adjudication of claims under the pilot program; and
(ii) improving the efficiency of decision making by the
Department.
(G) Such recommendations for legislative or administrative
action as the Secretary considers appropriate in light of the
pilot program.
(k) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``active military, naval, or air service'' has
the meaning given that term in section 101(24) of title 38,
United States Code.
(2) The term ``non-service-connected'', with respect to a
disability, has the meaning given that term in section
101(17) of title 38, United States Code.
(3) The term ``service-connected'', with respect to a
disability, has the meaning given that term in section
101(16) of title 38, United States Code.

TITLE II--ADJUDICATION AND APPEAL MATTERS

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

(a) In General.--Section 1157 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--The Secretary''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Assignment of Partial Ratings.--(1) In the case of a
veteran who submits to the Secretary a claim for compensation
under this chapter for more than one condition and the
Secretary determines that a disability rating can be assigned
without further development for one or more conditions but
not all conditions in the claim, the Secretary shall--
``(A) expeditiously assign a disability rating for the
condition or conditions that the Secretary determined could
be assigned without further development; and
``(B) continue development of the remaining conditions.
``(2) If the Secretary is able to assign a disability
rating for a condition described in paragraph (1)(B) with
respect to a claim, the Secretary shall assign such rating
and combine such rating with the rating or ratings previously
assigned under paragraph (1)(A) with respect to that
claim.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to claims filed on or after the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

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

(a) In General.--Section 5103(a)(1) of title 38, United
States Code, is amended by striking the first sentence and
inserting the following: ``If the Secretary receives a
complete or substantially complete application that does not
include information or medical or lay evidence not previously
provided to the Secretary that is necessary to substantiate
the claim, the Secretary shall, upon receipt of such
application, notify the claimant and the claimant's
representative, if any, that such information or evidence is
necessary to substantiate the claim.''.

[[Page S5273]]

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall apply with respect to claims filed on or after the
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) In General.--Section 5104 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking the second sentence; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``also include (1) a''
and all that follows and inserting the following: ``include
the following:
``(1) A statement of the reasons for the decision.
``(2) A summary of the evidence relied upon by the
Secretary in making the decision.
``(3) An explanation of the procedure for obtaining review
of the decision.
``(4) A form that, once completed, can serve as a notice of
disagreement under section 7105(a) of this title.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act.

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

(a) Filing of Notice of Disagreement by Claimants.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 7105(b) of title
38, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by striking ``one year'' and inserting ``180 days'' in
the first sentence; and
(B) by striking ``one-year'' and inserting ``180-day'' in
the third sentence.
(2) Electronic filing.--Such paragraph is further amended
by inserting ``or transmitted by electronic means'' after
``postmarked''.
(3) Good cause exception for untimely filing of notices of
disagreement.--Such section 7105(b) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(3)(A) A notice of disagreement not filed within the time
prescribed by paragraph (1) shall be treated by the Secretary
as timely filed if--
``(i) the Secretary determines that the claimant, legal
guardian, or other accredited representative, attorney, or
authorized agent filing the notice had good cause for the
lack of filing within such time; and
``(ii) the notice of disagreement is filed not later than
186 days after the period prescribed by paragraph (1).
``(B) For purposes of this paragraph, good cause shall
include the following:
``(i) Circumstances relating to any physical, mental,
educational, or linguistic limitation of the claimant, legal
guardian, representative, attorney, or authorized agent
concerned (including lack of facility with the English
language).
``(ii) Circumstances relating to significant delay in the
delivery of the initial decision or of the notice of
disagreement caused by natural disaster or factors relating
to geographic location.

[[Page S5274]]

``(iii) A change in financial circumstances, including the
payment of medical expenses or other changes in income or net
worth that are considered in determining eligibility for
benefits and services on an annualized basis for purposes of
needs-based benefits under chapters 15 and 17 of this
title.''.
(b) Application by Department for Review on Appeal.--
Section 7106 of such title is amended in the first sentence
by striking ``one-year period described in section 7105'' and
inserting ``period described in section 7105(b)(1)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to
claims filed on or after the date of the enactment of this
Act.

SEC. 207. MODIFICATION OF SUBSTANTIVE APPEAL PROCESS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Location.--Subsection (d) of section 7107 of title 38,
United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``An appellant'' and all
that follows through the end and inserting the following:
``Upon request by an appellant for a hearing before the
Board, the Board shall determine whether the hearing will be
held at its principal location or at a facility of the
Department, or other appropriate Federal facility, located
within the area served by a regional office of the Department
as the Secretary considers most appropriate to schedule the
earliest possible date for the hearing.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) A determination by the Board under paragraph (1) with
respect to the location of a hearing shall be final unless
the appellant demonstrates, on motion, good cause or special
circumstances warranting a different location.''.
(b) Manner of Appearance.--Subsection (e) of such section
is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)--
(A) by striking ``afford the appellant an opportunity'' and
inserting ``, as the Chairman determines appropriate, require
the appellant''; and
(B) by striking the last sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) A determination by the Chairman under paragraph (2)
with respect to the participation of an appellant in a
hearing shall be final unless the appellant demonstrates, on
motion, good cause or special circumstances warranting a
different determination.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date that is 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to
requests for hearings filed on or after the date that is 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

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

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

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

(a) In General.--Section 7266 of title 38, United States
Code, is amended--

[[Page S5275]]

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

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

(a) Pilot Program Required.--The Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall carry out a pilot program to assess the
feasibility and advisability of entering into memorandums of
understanding with local governments and tribal
organizations--
(1) to improve the quality of claims submitted to the
Secretary for compensation under chapter 11 of title 38,
United States Code; and
(2) to provide assistance to veterans who may be eligible
for such compensation in submitting such claims .
(b) Minimum Number of Participating Tribal Organizations.--
In carrying out the pilot program required by subsection (a),
the Secretary shall enter into memorandums of understanding
with at least two tribal organizations.
(c) Tribal Organization Defined.--In this section, the term
``tribal organization'' has the meaning given that term in
section 3765 of title 38, United States Code.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Specter, Mr.
Schumer, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 3518. A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit
recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments in United
States Courts where those judgments undermine the first amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, and to provide a cause of action
for declaratory judgment relief against a party who has brought a
successful foreign defamation action whose judgment undermines the
first amendment; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, two years ago the United Nations' Human
Rights Committee observed a problem that ``discourage[d] critical media
reporting on matters of serious public interest, adversely affect[ed]
the ability of scholars and journalists to publish their work,'' and
``affect[ed] freedom of expression worldwide on matters of valid public
interest.'' That problem was ``libel tourism,'' a troubling trend of
foreign lawsuits that have stifled Americans' First Amendment rights.
Today, I am introducing legislation to put a stop to this harmful
trend.
The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy. Freedom
of speech and the press enable vigorous debate over issues of national
importance, and enable an exchange of ideas that shapes our political
process. Authors, reporters and publishers are primary sources of this
information, and their ability to disseminate their writings is
critical to our democracy.
Over recent years, American authors, reporters and publishers have
fallen victim to libel lawsuits in countries with significantly weaker
free speech protections that what our First Amendment affords. In many
cases, the foreign plaintiff sought out that country, where there is no
regard for freedom of the press, so that they could easily prevail.
These suits occur regardless of whether the plaintiff or the
publication has significant connections to the foreign forum. On a
broad scale, this results in a race to the bottom, and causes U.S.
persons to defer to the country with the most chilling and restrictive
free speech standard, to determine what they can or cannot write or
publish. This is libel tourism. As the son of a printer, I consider
this a matter of great national importance.
Today, I am introducing with Senators Sessions, Specter, Schumer and
Lieberman legislation that will ensure American authors, journalists
and publishers are shielded from the chilling effects of libel tourism.
This legislation guarantees that a foreign defamation judgment cannot
be enforced in the United States if that country's libel standards are
inconsistent with American law. Our legislation also provides American
victims of unconstitutional libel suits the opportunity to clear their
name by filing for a declaratory judgment in an American court.
Over the past several years, the problem of libel tourism has grown.
Today, countries whose weak libel laws impact American authors are no
longer confined to a small number. England, Brazil, Australia,
Indonesia, and Singapore are just a few of the countries whose weak
libel protections have attracted libel lawsuits against American
journalists and authors. This threat to American free speech must end,
and the time to act is now.
New accounts of libel tourism lawsuits emerge every day. This is
because the dissemination of materials through the Internet, as well as
the increased number of worldwide newspapers and periodicals, has
compounded their threat. The likelihood that a book or story will have
some contact with a foreign country is simply that much higher, as is
the probability that a foreign court will determine that it has a basis
for asserting jurisdiction over an American author or publisher. As we
heard at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, this has a dramatic
chilling effect on Americans' free speech.
The impact and extreme nature of these foreign libel lawsuits is best
understood through examples. The most well known is the case of
American journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld, who wrote a book about the
financiers of the 9/11 attacks. She did not market her book in England
yet was sued for libel there by a Saudi businessman she linked to
terrorism. The content of her publication would have been protected
under our laws, but a British court applying its laws issued a
multimillion dollar default judgment against her. Today, Ms. Ehrenfeld
continues to experience reluctance from American publishers who fear
that plaintiffs will target her and bring another libel action against
anything she writes on the subject of terrorism financing.
The scientific community has also been affected by libel tourism. An
article last year in New Scientist magazine notes that now
``Challenging the scientific validity of a product or claim can be
fraught with danger. . . [because] such challenges are leaving
scientists and science writers [to] fac[e] an expensive libel action
before the English high court. Many individuals and publications have
been threatened with libel actions, and some have had proceedings
launched against them. Many more writers have had their work edited
before publication to avoid any risk of such legal action.''
Publications exposing financial improprieties, consumer protection
issues, medical malpractice, and sexual abuse have all fallen victim to
libel tourism lawsuits around the world.
Even Roman Polanski sued Vanity Fair for libel in England. Mr.
Polanski, a fugitive from justice who fled America after being
convicted of sexually abusing a young girl, filed the suit in 2004. He
has fought extradition while living in Europe. The Vanity Fair article
recounted a story of his alleged aggressive sexual advances made just
after his wife was murdered, and portrayed him as being insensitive to
her death. The article was written in the U.S., edited in the U.S., and
primarily sold in the U.S., but the British court claimed jurisdiction,
and ruled in favor of Mr. Polanski.
Foreign libel judgments impact American authors' livelihood,
credibility and employment potential. They also have the potential to
limit the types of books and articles that talented and reputable
authors can get published in the future. But most importantly, their
suppression limits the information that Americans have a constitutional
right to access. Journalists writing about issues of national security
and safety should not be chilled. These lawsuits are designed to stifle
the dissemination of that information in both the United States and the
world. Journalists willing to investigate and write about such
important issues deserve protection.
I am encouraged that some countries have taken steps to strengthen
their

[[Page S5276]]

libel protections and jurisdictional requirements in the wake of these
lawsuits, but that is not enough. As one country tightens its libel
protections, another may just emerge as the next-best-available forum
of choice for libel plaintiffs willing to travel to file suit.
I want to thank the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee,
Senator Sessions, for working with me on this legislation. I also want
to thank Senators Schumer and Specter, for their support in moving
toward a legislative compromise on this important issue. Their bills
provided a valuable basis from which the bipartisan compromise that we
are introducing today emerged.
We cannot legislate changes to foreign law that are chilling
protected speech in our country. What we can do, however, is ensure
that our courts do not become a tool to uphold foreign libel judgments
that undermine our First Amendment or due process rights. We can also
provide American authors and reporters the ability to clear their name
in our courts.
I hope all Senators will support our bipartisan effort to pass this
important legislation this summer to protect the free speech rights of
all Americans.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Lieberman):
S. 3519. A bill to stabilize the matching requirement for
participants in the Hollings Manufacturing Partnership Program; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along
with Senators Kohl and Lieberman, to reduce the cost share amount that
Manufacturing Extension Partnership, or MEP, centers face in obtaining
their annual funding. The MEP is a nationwide public-private network of
counseling and assistance centers that offer our nation's nearly
350,000 small and medium manufacturers services and access to resources
that enhance growth, improve productivity, and expand capacity. In
Fiscal Year 2009 alone, MEP clients created or retained roughly 53,000
jobs; provided cost savings in excess of $1.41 billion; and generated
over $9.1 billion in sales. Similarly, clients of the Maine MEP
reported saving or retaining 550 jobs, experiencing $8.3 million in
cost savings, and generating over $78.3 million in sales in 2009. As
such, the MEP's contribution to the health of American manufacturing is
indisputable.
At present, individual MEP centers must raise a full 2/3 of their
funding after their fourth year of operation, placing a heavy burden on
these centers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology,
NIST, at the Department of Commerce, in turn, provides one-third of the
centers' funding. MEP centers can meet their portion of the cost share
requirement through funds from universities, State and local
governments, and other institutions.
In today's tumultuous economy, these centers are experiencing
increased difficulties finding adequate funding from both private and
public sources. As economic concerns weigh down on all of us, states,
organizations, and groups that traditionally assist MEP centers in
meeting this cost share are reluctant to expend the money--or do not
have the resources to do so.
Our bill, which is a modified version of S. 695 that I and several of
my colleagues introduced last March, is simple and straightforward. It
would reduce the statutory cost share that MEP centers face to 50
percent for fiscal years 2011 through 2013 as a temporary stimulative
measure. Frankly, the Nation's MEP centers are subject to an
unnecessarily restrictive cost share requirement. And it is
inequitable, as the MEP is the only initiative out of the 80 programs
funded by the Department of Commerce that is subject to a statutory
cost share of greater than 50 percent. There is no reason for this to
persist, particularly not during this trying economy when so many
manufacturers are trying to remain afloat.
Clearly, Congress must act swiftly to bolster our country's
manufacturing industry rather than sitting on the sidelines as other
countries surpass our nation's economic leadership in a variety of
areas. Indeed, last Sunday's Financial Times included an article titled
``US manufacturing crown slips'' highlighting that, ``The U.S. remained
the world's biggest manufacturing nation by output last year, but is
poised to relinquish this slot in 2011 to China--thus ending a 110-year
run as the number one country in factory production.'' This news should
be a clarion call that investing in the manufacturing sector is
critical given the detrimental ramifications that losing our leadership
would have to our overall economy.
The MEP is an essential resource for the small and medium
manufacturers that will help reinvigorate our Nation's economy. With
centers in all 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico, its reach is
unmatched and its experience in counseling manufacturers is unrivaled.
It is my hope that my colleagues will support this legislation as a
direct way to bolster an industry that is indispensible to our nation's
economy health.
______

By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 3521. A bill to provide for the reestablishment of a domestic rare
earths materials production and supply industry in the United States,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
in the Senate to help the United States minerals industry resume
production of rare earths in this country. These metals are
increasingly important to our military, strategic, and economic
priorities due to their use in clean energy technologies and many other
high-tech applications.
For many years the United States was a leader in the mining and
processing of rare earths--a group of 17 elements that, while
widespread in nature, are difficult to find in concentration, extract
from the earth, and process for commercial use. Rare earths are
increasingly vital to a host of modern defense technologies, from radar
and sonar systems to weapons systems and advanced lasers. They are
essential to the production of clean energy technologies, including
advanced batteries, electric motors, high-efficiency light bulbs, solar
panels, and wind turbines.
The U.S. is estimated to contain 15 percent of the world's rare earth
reserves, but with the closure of the nation's only operating rare
earth mine at Mountain Pass, CA, America has become dependent upon
China for imports of nearly all rare earths, oxides, and alloys. In
fact, China now produces 97 percent of the world's rare earth supply.
More importantly, China recently moved to implement rules announced
in March that will cut production and exportation of rare earths in an
effort to raise world prices for the minerals. While the world demand
for rare earths tripled to 120,000 tons per year over the past decade,
China announced on June 2nd that it will stop issuing new domestic
licenses for rare earth production and cap production at 89,200 tons
for this year. As a result, only 35,000 tons of rare earths will be
exported annually over the next five years, on average.
These actions may work out well for China, but they will harm the
United States. Fortunately, we can do something about it. Rather than
sit on our hands while China corners the market on these strategic
minerals, we can and should pursue timely production of the rare earth
supplies that exist within our own borders.
Efforts are currently underway to reopen Molycorp Minerals'
California mine and Ucore Uranium is continuing exploration of a large
rare earth deposit found near Bokan Mountain in Alaska, about 37 miles
from Ketchikan. Ucore's new Alaska subsidiary, Rare Earth One LLC, has
been working to study the deposit on Dotson Ridge at Bokan Mountain
since 2007. The U.S. Bureau of Mines more than 20 years ago estimated
the site contains at least 374 million pounds of recoverable rare
earths, which is more than enough to break China's stranglehold on the
market and protect America's access to the rare earths that are vital
to the production of cutting-edge technologies in this country.
So what should we be doing to reestablish domestic rare earth? My
answer is a companion measure to legislation introduced earlier this
spring in the House by Rep. Mike Coffman, a fellow Republican from
Colorado. My bill would establish it as the policy of the

[[Page S5277]]

United States to take appropriate actions to increase investment in,
exploration for, and development of domestic rare earths. To do that it
would require--under the leadership of the Secretary of the Interior--
the Secretaries of Energy, Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, and State
along with the Director of OMB and the Chairman of CEQ to expedite
permitting, review supply chains, and consider strategic stockpiling of
rare earths. The bill would also provide the rare earth industry with
access to federal loan guarantee programs meant to advance clean energy
technologies.
There is a great deal of emphasis on the need for expansion of clean
energy manufacturing in the United States. Promises of ``green jobs''
abound, but they will only be realized if American industries have
access to the raw materials needed to produce these new technologies.
This legislation represents an important first step in our efforts to
grow domestic manufacturing of clean energy technologies. The bill will
also help to create more jobs in America's minerals industry, where
firms provide good, high-wage jobs and pay taxes that will help to
reduce our deficit. Furthermore, decreasing our reliance on foreign
minerals will reduce our balance of payments deficit and strengthen
national security.
I hope this bill advances quickly, and I encourage my colleagues to
join as cosponsors of the measure. We have an ambitious agenda given
the small amount of time that remains in the current Congress, but
there is too much at stake for our military strength and our clean
energy goals to ignore the problems we have in accessing affordable and
secure supplies of rare earths.
______

By Mr. FRANKEN (for himself, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Menendez, Ms.
Klobuchar, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Durbin, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 3522. A bill to protect children affected by immigration
enforcement actions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, on December 12, 2006, Immigration and
Customs Enforcement staged raids on Swift & Company meatpacking plants
in six states--Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, and my home State
of Minnesota.
Over 1,500 unauthorized immigrants were arrested in these raids. They
also left countless children--most of them citizens and legal
residents--without their parents and with no way of finding them. One
second-grader in Worthington, MN--a U.S. citizen--came home that
Tuesday night to find his 2-year-old brother alone and his mother and
father missing.
For the next week, this boy stayed at home caring for his 2-year-old
brother while his grandmother traveled to Worthington to care for her
grandchildren.
On June 22, 2007, ICE agents staged another raid, this one in the
Jackson Heights Manufactured Home Park in Shakopee, MN. Early that
Friday morning, around 6 a.m., Federal agents seized a husband and his
wife for suspected immigration violations. Somehow, they didn't even
notice their daughter, who was sleeping. So later that morning, that 7-
year-old girl was found wandering the park, looking for her parents.
Stories like these happen every day. They are happening to innocent
children, most of them United States citizens. Children who have
committed no crime, who have hurt no one, but who have had their lives
torn apart because of the sins of their parents.
According to the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, over 100,000
parents of U.S. citizen children were deported in the past 10 years.
Four million U.S. citizen children in our country have at least one
undocumented immigrant parent. Forty thousand of those children live in
Minnesota.
Our country is not doing enough to protect these innocent kids. That
is why Senator Kohl and I have crafted a bill to fix that.
So I am proud to stand today with Senators Kohl, Menendez, Klobuchar,
Feingold, Durbin and Feinstein to introduce the Humane Enforcement and
Legal Protections for Separated Children Act, or the HELP Separated
Children Act. This is a simple but strong bill to protect our Nation's
kids from unnecessary harm from immigration enforcement actions.
I want to take a few moments to talk about what this bill does--the
problems it solves, and how it solves them.
But before I do that, I want to take a second to talk about what this
bill does not do. This bill is strictly about protecting children. It
doesn't change our laws on immigrant admission, exclusion, or removal.
No one is going to get in or stay in this country because of this bill.
It has nothing to do with so-called amnesty or any decisions about
deportation.
So what does this bill actually do?
This bill fixes four problems in our immigration enforcement system.
The first problem is notice to State authorities. Invariably, in
almost all immigration enforcement actions, it is our local communities
that have to clean up after the government's dirty work.
It's state and child welfare services that take in kids who have lost
their mom or dad in a raid. It's local shelters and churches that feed
those kids--again, most of whom are citizens--when their family
breadwinner is taken away. And it's local schools that have to take
care of kids when no one picks them up after soccer practice.
After the Swift raids, the Bush administration finally understood
this. And so in 2007, it put in place humanitarian guidelines that call
upon ICE to reach out to state authorities and child welfare services
before major enforcement actions. Again, that is the Bush
administration. President Obama expanded these guidelines in 2009 so
that they would cover more worksite actions.
But it still isn't enough. Local authorities still don't find out
about actions until way too late--and when they are notified, they
aren't given enough time to help. In 2008, after these guidelines were
put into place, the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department
testified before the House of Representatives that they still did not
receive notice of enforcement actions before they happened.
State authorities in Massachusetts were notified months ahead of a
raid in New Bedford. But almost immediately after it happened, the
detainees were transferred to Texas, leaving state agencies unable to
help. Governor Deval Patrick called it a ``race to the airport.''
Our bill makes sure that whenever possible, the Governor, local and
state law enforcement, and child welfare agencies find out about raids
ahead of time. It also makes sure that schools and community centers
are notified after these actions so that they too can help.
That brings me to the second problem. If they want to help, state
child welfare agencies and community organizations must be allowed to
help identify detainees who have children at home. Mothers and fathers
detained in enforcement actions often don't tell ICE agents that they
have children at home--because they are afraid that ICE will detain
them, too.
As Troy Tucker, the sheriff of Clark County, Arkansas said after an
action there, ICE is ``not doing their job by simply questioning
[people] and asking them whether they have children and not contacting
anyone locally.''
Even though the Bush administration guidelines allow state
authorities and local non-profits to help screen detainees, this is not
happening often enough. So our bill requires ICE and State agencies
enforcing immigration laws to allow these groups to confidentially
screen detainees and identify those who have kids at home.
Our bill makes another critical fix in our immigration enforcement
system. The Bush and ICE detention guidelines require authorities to
give detainees free emergency phone calls. But again, it isn't being
done enough, and it isn't being done right.
In the Swift raid in Worthington, one mother told ICE agents that she
had kids at home, but still wasn't allowed to call them or let anyone
know what had happened until later the next day. In Iowa, after a raid
in Postville, some children went 72 hours without seeing their parents
or knowing what happened to them.
Any parent knows how scared kids get just when you come home late.
Can you imagine how scared they would get if you went missing for a
whole day? For 3 days? Can you imagine what would happen if they didn't
know who to call? Can you imagine what would

[[Page S5278]]

happen if they didn't have anything to eat?
Our bill requires Federal and State authorities to allow parents,
legal guardians, or primary caregivers to make free phone calls to
their family, to lawyers, and to child welfare agencies to make sure
that their kids aren't abandoned.
Finally, our bill averts one other major problem.
When a parent is detained, even if their kids know where they are, it
is still extremely difficult for kids and parents to stay in contact.
And it is extremely difficult for parents to participate in legal
proceedings that affect their kids.
This means that parents can't tell a family court judge about a
brother or sister or neighbor that could take care of their child.
Children have actually been adopted by well-meaning families or put
into foster care because their parents were unable to participate in
custody proceedings.
Our bill makes sure that after they're detained, parents can continue
to have access to phones to call their kids, their lawyers, and family
courts. Our bill also requires ICE to consider the best interests of
children in decisions to transfer detainees between facilities, or put
them into reliable and cost-effective supervised release programs.
Our immigration system isn't broken. It is in shambles. And while our
bill doesn't fix 99.9 percent of those problems, it takes a small but
important step to make sure our kids don't suffer any more than they
have to already.
I am proud to say that because this is such a critical, albeit
narrowly targeted measure, our bill has gained the support of the top
faith, child welfare, and immigrant advocacy organizations in the
country.
I'm also proud to say that it has won the support of faith leaders
across Minnesota, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Chief Tom Smith of
the St. Paul Police Department, and countless immigrant advocacy groups
in the State.
While immigration may be complicated, protecting our kids isn't. It's
something we can all agree on.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and
a list of supporters be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 3522

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Humane Enforcement and Legal
Protections for Separated Children Act'' or the ``HELP
Separated Children Act''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

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

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

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

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

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
ensure that all detention facilities operated by or under
agreement with the Department of Homeland Security

[[Page S5279]]

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

SEC. 5. MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING.

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

SEC. 6. MANDATORY TRAINING.

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

SEC. 7. RULEMAKING.

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

SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.

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

National Organizations Supporting the HELP Separated Children Act

AFL-CIO; America's Promise Alliance; American Humane
Association; American Immigration Lawyers Association;
American Muslim Voice; American Nursery & Landscape
Association; Amnesty International USA; Arizona Council of
Human Service Providers; Asian & Pacific Islander American
Health Forum; Asian American Justice Center; Asian Pacific
American Labor Alliance; Bridging Group; Catholic Charities
USA; Center for Asian Pacific Islander; Center for Farmworker
Families; Child Welfare League of America; Church World
Service, Immigration and Refugee Program; The Episcopal
Church; Every Child Matters Education Fund; Family Violence
Prevention Fund; First Focus Campaign for Children; Foster
Care Alumni of America; Foster Family-based Treatment
Association; Friends Committee on National Legislation;
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS); Human Rights Watch;
Immigrant Legal Resource Center; Immigration Equality;
Juvenile Law Center; Kids in Need of Defense (KIND); Latino
Commission on AIDS; Legal Momentum; Lutheran Immigrant and
Refugee Service (LIRS); Lutheran Immigration and Refugee
Service (LIRS); Mennonite Central Committee U.S.--Washington
Office; Midwest Coalition for Human Rights; Moms Rising;
National Association for the Education of Homeless Children
and Youth; National Association of Social Workers; National
Consumers League; National Council of Jewish Women; National
Council of La Raza; National Federation of Filipino American
Associations; National Foster Care Coalition; National
Immigrant Justice Center; National Immigration Forum;
National Immigration Law Center; National Korean American
Service & Education Consortium; National Latino AIDS Action
Network; National Policy Partnership; OCA; Physicians for
Human Rights; Saavedra Law Firm; Sargent Shriver National
Center on Poverty Law; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas,
South Central Community; Sojourners; South Asian Americans
Leading Together (SAALT); Southeast Asia Resource Action
Center; U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants; Union for
Reform Judaism; Unitarian Universalist Association of
Congregations; United Methodist Church, General Board of
Church and Society; Voices for America's Children; Women's
Refugee Commission; Youth Build USA; Zero to Three.

State and Local Organizations Supporting the HELP Separated Children
Act

Arizona

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

Arkansas

Arkansas Voices.

California

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

Colorado

Lutheran Advocacy Ministries; Rocky Mountain Immigrant
Advocacy Network.

Connecticut

Connecticut Voices for Children.

District of Columbia

Ayuda; The Episcopal Church.

Florida

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

Georgia

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

Illinois

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

Iowa

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

Kentucky

Kentucky Youth Advocates.

Louisiana

New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice.

Maine

Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project; Maine Children's
Alliance.

Maryland

CASA de Maryland; Lutheran Office on Public Policy.

Michigan

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

Minnesota

Advocates for Human Rights; American Immigration Lawyers
Association, Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter; Ascension Church;
Benedictine-Franciscan Immigrant Justice Commission (St.
Joseph & Little Falls, MN); Casa Guadalupana; Catholic
Charities of St. Paul & Minneapolis; Center for Asian Pacific
Islanders; Center for Mission, Archdiocese of St. Paul and
Minneapolis; Children's Defense Fund Minnesota; Children's
Law Center of Minnesota; Chinese Social Service Center;
Church World Service; Congregational Council, the Miracle
Lutheran Church; Department of Social Concerns, Catholic
Charities of the Diocese of St. Cloud; Family & Children's
Service; Franciscan Sisters of Little Falls; Great River
Interfaith Partnership; Hmong American Partnership;
Hospitality Minnesota; Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota;
Immigration Task Force, Minnesota Conference United Church of
Christ; Interfaith Coalition on Immigration; ISAIAH; Jewish
Community Action; Justice Commission of the Sisters of St.
Joseph of Carondelet and Consociates; Latin America

[[Page S5280]]

& Haiti Focus Group, St. Luke's Presbyterian Church; Legal
Rights Center; Lutheran Coalition for Public Policy in
Minnesota; Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota;
Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers; Mid-
Minnesota Legal Assistance; Midwest Food Processors
Association; Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights;
Minnesota AFL-CIO; Minnesota Agri-Growth Council;
Minnesota Alliance With Youth; Minnesota Business
Immigration Coalition; Minnesota Catholic Conference;
Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Minnesota Fathers &
Families Network; Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association;
Minnesota Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Minnesota Lodging
Association; Minnesota Milk Producers Association;
Minnesota Nursery & Landscape Association; Minnesota
Restaurant Association; Minnesota School Social Workers
Association; Minnesota Strengthening Our Lives (SOL); No
More Children Left Behind; Office of Justice, Peace &
Integrity of Creation, School Sisters of Notre Dame,
Mankato; Project for Pride in Living; Service Employees
International Union (SEIU), Local 26--Minneapolis; Service
Employees International Union (SEIU), Minnesota State
Council; Sisters Online; Social Concerns & Family Office,
Diocese of New Ulm; Sowers Leadership Team, Guardian
Angels Catholic Church; St. John Neumann Catholic Church;
The Minneapolis Foundation; UFCW Local 1161--Worthington;
UFCW Local 789--South St. Paul; UNITE Here, Minnesota
State Council; United Cambodian Association of Minnesota;
United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), Local 1161--
Worthington; United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW),
Local 789--South St. Paul; Willmar Area Comprehensive
Immigration Reform; YWCA of Minneapolis.

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

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

New Jersey

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

New Mexico

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

New York

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

North Carolina

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

Oklahoma

Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy.

Oregon

Immigration Counseling Services (Portland, OR).

South Carolina

South Carolina Appleseed.

Texas

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

Virginia

Voices for Virginia's Children.

Washington

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

____________________