S. 376Senate110th Congress (2007-2009)In Committee

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

7 earlier actions

SenateCalendars Latest Action

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 341.

September 5, 2007

View full timeline

SenateIntro Referral

Introduced in Senate

January 24, 2007

SenateIntro Referral

Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1061)

January 24, 2007

SenateIntro Referral

Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1061-1062)

Judiciary Committee

January 24, 2007

SenateCommittee

Committee on the Judiciary. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.

Judiciary Committee

March 15, 2007

SenateCommittee

Committee on the Judiciary. Committee consideration and Mark Up Session held.

Judiciary Committee

April 12, 2007

SenateCommittee

Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.

Judiciary Committee

May 17, 2007

SenateCommittee

Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Leahy without amendment. With written report No. 110-150. Minority views filed.

Judiciary Committee

September 5, 2007

SenateCalendars

Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 341.

September 5, 2007

Floor Debate

21 members

What members said about S. 376 on the floor

+16

5 Republicans16 Democrats

Sen. Patrick J. LeahyD-VT · Jan 24, 2007

Mr. President, in 2003, Senator Campbell and I, joined by 68 other Senators, introduced a bill that allowed a qualified retired or current law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm across State lines. The Senate passed our bill by unanimous consent, which was signed into law in July 2004. Passage of the Law Enforcement Safety Officers Act was a resounding vote of confidence in the men and women who serve their communities as protectors of the peace, and their Nation as the first line of defense in any emergency.

But since enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, it has become clear that qualified retired officers have been subject to varying and complex certification procedures from State to State. In many cases, differing interpretations have complicated the implementation of the law, and retired officers have experienced significant frustration in getting certified to lawfully carry a firearm.

With the input of the law enforcement community, this bill proposes modest amendments to streamline the current law, which will give retired officers more flexibility in obtaining certification, and provides room for the variability in certification standards among the several States. For example, where a State has not set active duty standards, the retired officer can be certified pursuant to the standards set by any law enforcement agency in the State.

In addition to these adjustments, the bill also makes clear that Amtrak officers, along with officers of the Executive branch of the Federal Government, are covered by the law. The bill also reduces from 15 to 10 the years of service required for a retired officer to qualify under the law. Though these changes broaden the reach of the law, the requirements for eligibility still involve a significant term of service for a retired officer to qualify, and a demonstrated commitment to law enforcement.

This bill makes sensible improvements to existing law by providing the flexibility needed to permit qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in a legal and responsible manner.

With the enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, Congress and the President also recognized that law enforcement officers are never ``off-duty.'' The dedicated public servants who are trained to uphold the law and keep the peace deserve our support not just in their professional lives, but also when they go off-duty or into retirement. Convicted criminals often have long and exacting memories, and to the extent we can, we must aid these public servants with the tools they need to keep themselves and their families safe. Because one thing we know for sure is that a law enforcement officer is a target, whether in uniform or out, and whether active or retired. We also act in our own interest when we help law enforcement officers with the ability to answer the call of duty wherever they may be. Society's trust in the men and women who serve should include the faith that the responsibilities we entrust to them do not disappear once State lines are crossed.

In 2004, Congress listened carefully to the concerns of the law enforcement community and responded appropriately. Let us do so again with these sensible improvements.

I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I was disappointed at the end of last Congress that, like so much other urgent business of the American people left unattended, we did not pass a measure to improve court security. We made some progress on this important issue when the Senate passed a consensus bipartisan court security bill. Unfortunately we were unable to cross the finish line because the House Republican leadership did not take up this bill. And so that still eaves our Nation's judges and their families without the vital protections that bill would have provided.

Today, I join with other Senators on both sides of the aisle to try again. Along with the Majority Leader Senator Reid; the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Specter; the Majority Whip, Senator Durbin; and Senators Kennedy, Schumer, Cornyn, Hatch and Collins, I introduce the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, a consensus measure with bipartisan support nearly identical to the bill we passed in the Senate last December. House Judiciary Chairman Conyers is introducing an identical measure in the House with bipartisan support. This bi-cameral, bi-partisan introduction sends a strong message that we intend finally to finish this difficult struggle and enact this bill that should have been enacted months ago to increase protections for the dedicated women and men throughout the Judiciary in this country.

This is an important issue, and one I plan to make a priority this Congress. I hope that we can have quick action on this bill to bring to fruition our efforts to provide increased security, an effort that gained new urgency after the tragedy that befell Judge Joan Lefkow of Chicago. She is the Federal judge whose mother and husband were murdered in their home. As we heard in her courageous testimony in May 2005 before the Judiciary Committee, this tragedy provided a terrible reminder not only of the vulnerable position of our judges and their families, but of the critical importance of protecting judges both where they work and where they and their families live. The shooting last summer of a State judge in Nevada provided another terrible reminder of the vulnerable position of our Nation's State and Federal judges. We cannot tolerate or excuse or justify violence or the threat of violence against judges.

In a speech last year, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor criticized the uncivil tone of attacks on the courts, noting that they pose a danger to the very independence of the Federal judiciary. It is most unfortunate that some in this country have chosen to use dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric when talking about judges, comparing judges to terrorists and threatening judges with punishment for decisions they do not like. This rhetoric can only foster unacceptable violence against judges and it must stop, for the sake of our judges and the independence of the judiciary. Judicial fairness and independence are essential if we are to maintain our freedoms. Our independent judiciary is the envy of the rest of the world and a great source of our national strength and resilience. Let no one say things that might bring about further threats against our judges. We ought to be protecting them physically and institutionally.

When I last chaired the Judiciary Committee, one of my first efforts was pushing for passage of the Judicial Protection Act, which toughened criminal penalties for assaults against judges and their families. In order to meet the continuing challenges of keeping the Federal judiciary safe, in the last Congress Chairman Specter and I introduced S. 1968, the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005.

The bill we are introducing today in the Senate and House is a consensus bipartisan bill. I hope that quick action and passage of this bill can serve as a model for what we can achieve with bipartisan cooperation in the 110th Congress. Its core provisions, which previously passed the Senate not only last December, but also in June as part of the managers' package of the ``John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007,'' S. 2766, come the Court Security Improvement Act of 2005.

The bill responds to the needs expressed by the Federal judiciary for a

greater voice in working with the United States Marshals Service to determine their security needs. It enacts new criminal penalties for the misuse of restricted personal information to harm or threaten to harm Federal judges, their families or other individuals performing official duties. It enacts criminal penalties for threatening Federal judges and Federal law enforcement officials by the malicious filing of false liens, and provides increased protections for witnesses. The bill also contains provisions making available to States new resources to improve security for State and local court systems as well as providing additional protections for law enforcement officers. I am pleased that the bill includes an extension of life insurance benefits to bankruptcy, magistrate and territorial judges.

Finally, the bill contains provisions that have passed the Senate several times extending and expanding to family members the authority of the Judicial Conference to redact certain information from a Federal judge's mandatory financial disclosure. This expired redaction authority was used in circumstances in which the release of the information could endanger the filer or the filer's family. I hope that we can reinstate and expand this much needed redaction authority.

These protections are crucial to the preservation of the independence of our Federal judiciary so that it can continue to serve as a bulwark protecting individual rights and liberty. Our Nation's Founders knew that without an independent judiciary to protect individual rights from the political branches of government, those rights and privileges would amount to nothing. It is the ultimate check and balance in our system of government in times of heated political rhetoric.

We owe it to our judges to better protect them and their families from violence and to ensure that they have the peace of mind necessary to do their vital and difficult jobs.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Sen. Susan M. CollinsR-ME · Jan 24, 2007

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues, Senators Harkin, Kennedy, Coleman, Pryor, Cantwell, Durbin, Mikulski, Bingaman, Lautenberg and Kerry, in introducing the ``Keeping Families Together Act.'' This legislation is intended to reduce the barriers to care for children with serious mental illness so that their parents are no longer forced to give up custody solely for the purpose of securing mental health treatment.

Serious mental illness afflicts millions of our Nation's children and adolescents. It is estimated that as many as 20 percent of American children under the age of 17 suffer from a mental, emotional or behavioral illness. What I find most disturbing, however, is the fact that two-thirds of all young people who need mental health treatment are not getting it.

Behind each of these statistics is a family that is struggling to do the best it can to help a son or daughter with serious mental health needs to be just like every other kid--to develop friendships, to do well in school, and to get along with their siblings and other family members. These children are almost always involved with more than one social service agency, including the mental health, special education, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems. Yet no one agency, at either the State or the Federal level, is clearly responsible or accountable for helping these children and their families.

My interest in this issue was triggered by a compelling series of stories by Barbara Walsh in the Portland Press Herald which detailed the obstacles that many Maine families have faced in getting desperately needed mental health services for their children. Too many families in Maine and elsewhere have been forced to make wrenching decisions when they have been advised that the only way to get the care that their children so desperately need is to relinquish custody and place them in either the child welfare or juvenile justice system.

When a child has a serious physical health problem like diabetes or a heart condition, the family turns to their doctor. When the family includes a child with a serious mental illness, it is often forced to go to the child welfare or juvenile justice system to secure treatment.

Yet neither system is intended to serve children with serious mental illness. Child welfare systems are designed to protect children who have been abused or neglected. Juvenile justice systems are designed to rehabilitate children who have committed criminal or delinquent acts. While neither of these systems is equipped to care for a child with a serious mental illness, in far too many cases, there is nowhere else for the family to turn.

In some extreme cases, families feel forced to file charges against their child or to declare that they have abused or neglected them in order to get the care that they need. As one family advocate observed, ``Beat `em up, lock `em up, or give `em up,'' characterizes the choices that some families face in their efforts to get help for their children's mental illness.

In 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report that I requested with Representatives Pete Stark and Patrick Kennedy that found that, in 2001, parents placed more than 12,700 children into the child welfare or juvenile justice systems so that these children could receive mental health services. This likely is just the tip of the iceberg, since 32 States--including five States with the largest populations of children--did not provide the GAO with any data.

Other studies indicate that the problem is even more pervasive. A 1999 survey by the National Alliance on Mental Illness found that 23 percent--or one in four of the parents surveyed--had been told by public officials that they needed to relinquish custody of their children to get care, and that one in five of these families had done so.

Some States have passed laws to limit custody or prohibit custody relinquishment. Simply banning the practice is not a solution, however, since it can leave children with mental illness and their families without services and care. Custody relinquishment is merely a symptom of the much larger problem, which is the lack of available, affordable and appropriate mental health services and support systems for these children and their families.

In 2003 and 2004, I chaired a series of hearings in the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to examine this issue further. We heard compelling testimony from mothers who told us that they were advised that the only way to get the intensive care and services that their children needed was to relinquish custody and place them in the child welfare or juvenile justice system. This is a wrenching decision that no family should be forced to make. No parent should have to give up custody of his or her child just to get the services that the child needs.

The mothers also described the barriers they faced in getting care for their children. They told us about the limitations in both public and private insurance coverage. They also talked about the lack of coordination and communication among the various agencies and programs that service children with mental health needs. One parent, desperate for help for her twin boys, searched for two years until she finally located a program--which she characterized as ``the best kept secret in Illinois''--that was able to help.

Parents should not be bounced from agency to agency, knocking on every door they come to, in the hope that they will happen upon someone who has an answer. It simply should not be such a struggle for parents to get services and treatment for their children.

We also need to question what happens to these children when they are turned over to the child welfare or juvenile justice authorities. I released a report in 2004 with Congressman Henry Waxman that found that all too often they are simply left to languish in juvenile detention centers, which are ill-equipped to meet their needs, while they wait for scarce mental health services.

Our report, which was based on a national survey of juvenile detention centers, found that the use of juvenile detention facilities to ``warehouse'' children with mental disorders is a serious national problem. It found that, over a six month period, nearly 15,000 young people--roughly seven percent of all of the children in the centers surveyed--were detained solely because they were waiting for mental health services outside the juvenile justice system. Many were held without any charges pending against them, and the young people incarcerated unnecessarily while waiting for treatment were as young as seven years old. Finally, the report estimated that juvenile detention facilities are spending an estimated $100 million of the taxpayers' money each year simply to warehouse children and teenagers while they are waiting for mental health services.

The Keeping Families Together Act, which we are introducing today, will help to improve access to mental health services and assist states in eliminating the practice of parents relinquishing custody of their children solely for the purpose of securing treatment.

The legislation authorizes $100 million over six years for competitive grants to states to create an infrastructure to support and sustain statewide systems of care to serve children who are in custody or at risk of entering custody of the State for the purpose of receiving mental health services. States already dedicate significant dollars to serve children in state custody. These Family Support Grants would help states to serve children more effectively and efficiently, while keeping them at home with their families.

In addition, the legislation calls for the creation of a federal interagency task force to examine mental health issues in the child welfare and juvenile justice systems and the role of those agencies in promoting access by children and youth to needed mental health services. The task force would also be charged with monitoring the Family Support grants, making recommendations to Congress on how to improve mental health services, and fostering interagency cooperation and removing interagency barriers that contribute to the problem of custody relinquishment.

The Keeping Families Together Act takes a critical step forward to meeting the needs of children with serious mental or emotional disorders. Our legislation has been endorsed by a broad coalition of mental health and children's groups, including the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Mental Health America, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association. I ask unanimous consent that letters from these organizations endorsing the bill be printed in the Record.

The Keeping Families Together Act will help to reduce the barriers to care for children with serious mental illness, and I urge our colleagues to join us as cosponsors.

Sen. Pete V. DomeniciR-NM · Jan 24, 2007

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce again legislation to eliminate one of the great inconsistencies in the Internal Revenue Code. I would like to thank my colleague, the senior Senator from New…

The bill we are introducing today is designed to restore some internal consistency to the tax code as it applies to art and artists. No one has ever said that the tax code is fair even though it has always been a theoretical objective of the code to treat similar taxpayers similarly.

Our bill would address two areas where similarly situated taxpayers are not treated the same. These two areas are internal inconsistencies contained within the tax code. Internal inconsistency number one deals with the long-term capital gains tax treatment of investments in art and collectibles. The second internal inconsistency involves how charitable contributions of art by the artist are treated under the law.

Long-term capital gains tax treatment of art is inherently unfair. If a person invests in stocks or bonds and sells at a gain, the tax treatment is long term capital gains. The top capital gains tax rate is 15 percent. However, if the same person invests in art or collectibles the top rate is hiked up to 28 percent. Art for art's sake should not incur a higher tax rate simply for revenue's sake. That is a big impact on the pocketbook of the investor.

Art and collectibles are alternatives to financial instruments as an investment choice. To create a tax disadvantage with respect to one investment compared to another creates an artificial market and may lead to poor investment allocations. It also adversely impacts those who make their livelihood in the cultural sectors of the economy.

Santa Fe, NM, is the third largest art market in the country. We have a diverse colony of artists, collectors and

gallery owners. We have fabulous Native American rug weavers, potters and carvers. Creative giants like Georgia O'Keeffe, Maria Martinez, E. L. Blumenshein, Allan Houser, R.C. Gorman, and Glenna Goodacre have all chosen New Mexico as their home and as their artistic subject. John Nieto, Wilson Hurley, Clark Hulings, Veryl Goodnight, Bill Acheff, Susan Rothenberg, Bruce Nauman, Agnes Martin, Doug Hyde, Margaret Nez, and Dan Ostermiller are additional examples of living artists creating art in New Mexico.

Art, antiques, and collectibles are a $12 to $20 billion annual industry nationwide. In New Mexico, it has been estimated that art and collectible sales range between $500 million and one billion a year.

Economists have always been interested in the economics of the arts. Adam Smith is a well-known economist. He was also a serious, but little-known essayist on painting, dancing, and poetry. Similarly, Keynes was both a famous economist and a passionate devotee of painting. However, even artistically inclined economists have found it difficult to define art within the context of economic theory.

When asked to define jazz, Louis Armstrong replied: ``If you gotta ask, you ain't never going to know.'' A similar conundrum has challenged Galbraith and other economists who have grappled with the definitional issues associated with bringing art within the economic calculus. Original art objects are, as a commodity group, characterized by a set of attributes: every unit of output is differentiated from every other unit of output; art works can be copied but not reproduced; and the cultural capital of the nation has significant elements of public good.

Because art works can be resold, and their prices may rise over time, they have the characteristics of financial assets, and as such may be sought as a hedge against inflation, as a store of wealth, or as a source of speculative capital gain. A study by Keishiro Matsumoto, Samuel Andoh and James P. Hoban, Jr. assessed the risk-adjusted rates of return on art sold at Sotheby's during the 14-year period ending September 30, 1989. They concluded that art was a good investment in terms of average real rates of return. Several studies found that rates of return from the price appreciation on paintings, comic books, collectibles and modern prints usually made them very attractive long- term investments. Also, when William Goetzmann was at the Columbia Business School, he constructed an art index and concluded that painting price movements and stock market fluctuations are correlated.

I conclude that with art, as well as stocks, past performance is no guarantee of future returns, but the gains should be taxed the same.

In 1990, the editor of Art and Auction asked the question: ``Is there an `efficient' art market?'' A well-known art dealer answered ``Definitely not. That's one of the things that makes the market so interesting.'' For everyone who has been watching world financial markets lately, the art market may be a welcome distraction.

Why do people invest in art and collectibles? Art and collectibles are something you can appreciate even if the investment doesn't appreciate. Art is less volatile. If buoyant and not so buoyant bond prices drive you berserk and spiraling stock prices scare you, art may be the appropriate investment for you. Because art and collectibles are investments, the long-term capital gains tax treatment should be the same as for stocks and bonds. This bill would accomplish that.

Artists will benefit. Gallery owners will benefit. Collectors will benefit. And museums benefit from collectors. About 90 percent of what winds up in museums like New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art comes from collectors.

Collecting isn't just for the hoyty toity. It seems that everyone collects something. Some collections are better investments than others. Some collections are just bizarre. The internet makes collecting big business, and flea market fanatics are avid collectors. In fact, people collect the darndest things. Books, duck decoys, chia pets, snowglobes, thimbles, handcuffs, spectacles, baseball cards, teddy bears, and guns are a few such ``collectibles''.

For most of these collections, capital gains isn't really an issue, but you never know. You may find that your collecting passion has created a tax predicament--to phrase it politely. Art and collectibles are tangible assets. When you sell them, capital gains tax is due on any appreciation over your purchase price.

The bill provides capital gains tax parity because it lowers the top capital gains rate from 28 percent to 15 percent.

As I stated earlier, the second internal inconsistency deals with the charitable deduction for artists donating their work to a museum or other charitable cause. When someone is asked to make a charitable contribution to a museum or to a fund raising auction, it shouldn't matter whether that person is an artist or not. Under current law, however, it makes a big difference. As the law stands now, an artist/ creator can only take a deduction equal to the cost of the art supplies. Our bill will allow a fair market deduction for the artist.

It's important to note that our bill includes certain safeguards to keep the artist from ``painting himself a tax deduction.'' This bill applies to literary, musical, artistic, and scholarly compositions if the work was created at least 18 months before the donation was made, has been appraised, and is related to the purpose or function of the charitable organization receiving the donation. As with other charitable contributions, it is limited to 50 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). If it is also a capital gain, there is a 30 percent of AGI limit. Mr. President, I believe these safeguards bring fairness back into the code and protect the Treasury against any potential abuse.

I hope my colleagues will help us put this internal consistency into the Internal Revenue Code.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Sen. Mel MartinezR-FL · Jan 24, 2007

Mr. President, today I rise to discuss an issue that is near and dear to my heart, because it involves children and youth in our foster care system. Inconsistencies in our Federal wage laws, coupled with increases in the minimum wage, are financially crippling the private, non-profit organizations and institutions that make up a necessary part of our communities' support systems for the most vulnerable in our society, the children.

More than 500,000 children are in America's foster care system at any given time, because their own families are in crisis or unable to provide for their essential well-being--most because they have been subject to abuse and neglect. Thankfully, most of these children are able to be placed with individual caring families. But for those children without a suitable or available foster family, they are placed in one of the many group homes associated with our foster care system.

Many of these group homes are specially tailored to the specific needs of foster care children by offering unique programs and on-site education to help heal the emotional scarring they have experienced.

These homes--often run by private, non-profit organizations--are dedicated to providing residential care and treatment for the ``orphans of the living,'' and they have long been a vital part of the social service networks in America's communities.

An essential component of the foster care network is the presence of caring parents in a family-like situation. And as in traditional parenting, the houseparents of group foster homes seek to provide the same love, care, and supervision of a traditional family for the five to eight children that reside with them.

Houseparents volunteer to permanently reside at the group home in order to create a family- like environment for those without a true sense of home--one that offers a structured atmosphere where these most vulnerable youth can heal, grow, and become productive members of society.

Foster care alumni studies show us that it is the consistent and life-long connection of caring foster parents that plays the biggest role in helping foster children transition into society.

However, our current laws are working against this cause, forcing group homes to move away from what they know is best for the children and preventing them from providing the most appropriate and consistent care. These youth so desperately need the stability that a family- like situation can provide. And this is what my amendment seeks to address.

Traditionally, in addition to a modest, fixed salary, houseparents have received food, lodging, insurance, and transportation free of charge.

In 1974, Congress recognized and confirmed the unique role houseparents serve when it passed the Hershey Exemption. This amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to preserve the appropriate method of compensation for houseparents--and allowed the lodging and food provided them to be considered when determining an appropriate salary for married houseparents serving with their spouse at nonprofit educational institutions.

Through this exemption, Congress supplied a way for these vital social services to continue to be provided by non-profit organizations in a way that is cost-effective, and at the same time appropriate and meaningful to both the children and the houseparents.

However, since the addition of this exemption, the demographics of America and of America's foster children have changed. Research now shows that due to the negative experiences some youth have faced, they may find a better environment for growth and healing in having a single houseparent of the same sex.

Our labor standards for these group homes have not kept pace with the ever-changing needs of these children.

Because the Hershey Exemption was only extended to married couples, group homes are now forced to choose between what is cheaper and what is best for the children. Unfortunately, the financial realities of the situation

place these facilities in a compromising situation.

You see, when a group home employs a single houseparent for a home, they are required to pay them as an hourly employee, whereas married houseparents serving together are allowed to be paid as salaried employees.

As a result, it costs a facility in Florida more than $74,000 annually at the current minimum wage rate to provide a full-time, single houseparent using the traditional live-in model.

In response, most facilities have resorted to teams of houseparents that work in 8 or 12 hour shifts--just to avoid the additional costs of overtime pay. Yet even this team model is pricey and means tough coordination and inconsistencies in care for these children. It also destroys the family-like arrangement of the home.

If the minimum wage bill--to which I am offering this bill as an amendment--passes, it will cost facilities across the U.S. in excess of $84,000 annually to house and employ a single, full-time houseparent in a foster care or educational group home. However, if it were a married couple serving in the same environment it would only require minimum wage guidelines being met.

Can you see how this inconsistency in our labor laws is, and will continue to be, crippling for the private, non-profit facilities?

In order to enable group homes to provide the most appropriate and consistent care for foster and emotionally scarred youth, my amendment will extend the Hershey Exemption to single houseparents, allowing them to be treated as salaried employees when free lodging and board are provided.

Voting in favor of my amendment will enable private, non-profit group homes to continue providing these vital services for our communities, with a stronger atmosphere of love and growth for the children.

Voting against this amendment will--that is, allowing it not to pass--will mean that the already heavy financial burden for these facilities will continue to grow. Homes will be forced to close or have to scale back on the number of children they can help.

To vote against this amendment is to turn children out on the street at a time when they need us most.

As a loving parent and grandparent, I want what is best for my children and for my grandchildren--I want to make sure they have whatever they need to overcome the obstacles of life and succeed. This is also what we should seek for foster children and the hurting youth in our communities--to provide the loving homes and facilities for them that provide what they need most and in the most appropriate and consistent way possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Sen. Daniel K. InouyeD-HI · Jan 24, 2007

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act. The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the…

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act.

The story of U.S. citizens taken from their homes on the west coast and confined in camps is a story that was made known after a fact- finding study by a Commission that Congress authorized in 1980. That study was followed by a formal apology by President Reagan and a bill for reparations. Far less known, and indeed, I myself did not initially know, is the story of Latin Americans of Japanese descent taken from their homes in Latin America, stripped of their passports, brought to the U.S., and interned in American camps.

This is a story about the U.S. government's act of reaching its arm across international borders, into a community that did not pose an immediate threat to our Nation, in order to use them, devoid of passports or any other proof of citizenship, for hostage exchange with Japan. Between the years 1941 and 1945, our government, with the

help of Latin American officials, arbitrarily arrested persons of Japanese descent from streets, homes, and workplaces. Approximately 2,300 undocumented persons were brought to camp sites in the U.S., where they were held under armed watch, and then held in reserve for prisoner exchange. Those used in an exchange were sent to Japan, a foreign country that many had never set foot on since their ancestors' immigration to Latin America.

Despite their involuntary arrival, Latin American internees of Japanese descent were considered by the Immigration and Naturalization Service as illegal entrants. By the end of the war, some Japanese Latin Americans had been sent to Japan. Those who were not used in a prisoner exchange were cast out into a new and English-speaking country, and subject to deportation proceedings. Some returned to Latin America. Others remained in the U.S., where their Latin American country of origin refused their re-entry because they were unable to present a passport.

When I first learned of the wartime experiences of Japanese Latin Americans, it seemed unbelievable, but indeed, it happened. It is a part of our national history, and it is a part of the living histories of the many families whose lives are forever tied to internment camps in our country.

The outline of this story was sketched out in a book published by the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians formed in 1980. This Commission had set out to learn about Japanese Americans. Towards the close of their investigations, the Commissioners stumbled upon this extraordinary effort by the U.S. government to relocate, intern, and deport Japanese persons formerly living in Latin America. Because this finding surfaced late in its study, the Commission was unable to fully uncover the facts, but found them significant enough to include in its published study, urging a deeper investigation.

I rise today to introduce the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, which would establish a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the 1980 Commission. This Commission's task would be to determine facts surrounding the U.S. government's actions in regards to Japanese Latin Americans subject to a program of relocation, interment, and deportation. I believe that examining this extraordinary program would give finality to, and complete the account of Federal actions to detain and intern civilians of Japanese ancestry.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to call attention to an important issue that the Congress has not adequately addressed since the painful events of September 11, 2001.

That issue is the inability of our first responders to speak to each other, a problem especially troubling during an emergency, when the ability to quickly and effectively communicate saves lives.

This is why I, with the cosponsorship of my colleagues, Senators Stevens, Kerry, Smith and Snowe, are introducing the Interoperable Emergency Communications Act.

After September 11, 2001, we heard heartbreaking stories of firefighters and police officers who went into harm's way because they lacked adequate information. These brave men and women were unable to reach victims because their systems could not communicate with one another.

At that time, the Congress began devoting greater attention to why many of our first responders lacked this ability to communicate with each other in the field. We asked what it would take to ensure communications equipment and facilities could withstand a natural disaster. We asked which equipment would be worthy of our investment.

Then Hurricane Katrina struck in August, 2006, and we found that our first responders faced the same communications failures. This is an unnecessary frustration that prevents our first responders from effectively doing their jobs.

Our bill provides needed direction to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) regarding its administration of the $1 billion grant program for interoperable communications systems for first responders, which was created by the Senate Commerce Committee early last year. It will be funded by money from the Digital Transition and Public Safety Fund and administered by the NTIA.

The bill designates grants for regional or statewide communications systems that will allow first responders to talk to one another during an emergency. It also sets aside funding for a technology reserve for immediate deployment of communications equipment in the event of an emergency or disaster.

To ensure a fair distribution of funds, the money will be distributed in accordance with guidelines outlined in the Patriot Act to ensure a fair distribution of funds, and grant allocations will be prioritized based on an ``all hazards'' approach that will take into account threat and risk factors associated with natural disasters--such as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, and tornadoes--as well as risks associated with terrorist attacks.

Every day we hear about potential threats against our Nation and it will not be long until we are again in the midst of hurricane season. I hope that history will not repeat itself and that the Congress can act quickly in directing the NTIA to give our first responders the tools they need to effectively do their jobs. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Show 8 more

Bill Text

2 versions available

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF XML

Reported to SenateIssued September 5, 2007

Calendar No. 341

110th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 376

[Report No. 110–150]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 24, 2007

Mr. Leahy (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Domenici, and Mr. Smith) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

September 5, 2007

Reported by Mr. Leahy, without amendment

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.

Short title

This Act may be cited as the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007.

Amendments to law enforcement officer safety provisions of title 18

(a)

In general

Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

(f)

For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest.

(b)

Retired law enforcement officers

Section 926C of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1)

in subsection (c)—

(A)

in paragraph (3)(A), by striking was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more and inserting served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more;

(B)

by striking paragraphs (4) and (5) and inserting the following:

(4)

during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers as set by the officer’s former agency, the State in which the officer resides or a law enforcement agency within the State in which the officer resides;

; and

(C)

by redesignating paragraphs (6) and (7) as paragraphs (5) and (6), respectively;

(2)

in subsection (d)—

(A)

in paragraph (1), by striking to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or and inserting to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm or; and

(B)

in paragraph (2)(B), by striking otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm. and inserting

otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met—

(i)

the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

(ii)

if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

; and

(3)

by adding at the end the following:

(f)

In this section, the term service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.

September 5, 2007

Reported without amendment