[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 7, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1710-S1717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 510. A bill to specify that the 100 most populous urban areas of
the United States, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security,
shall be eligible for grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative
of the Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Urban Area
Security Initiative Improvement Act,'' which addresses eligibility for
the Department of Homeland Security's Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI) grant program.
This bill will improve the existing grant award process by broadening
the number of urban areas eligible to apply. In Fiscal Year 06, the
Department of Homeland Security made arbitrary decisions about areas'
need for homeland security funding, threatening the eligibility of
eleven worthy areas to apply for future grants.
The eligibility of Sacramento and San Diego, in my State of
California, were threatened in this way. Sacramento is the capital of
the most populous State in the Nation and home to
[[Page S1711]]
dozens of critical Federal and State government buildings. In addition,
much of the State's water, electricity, and telecommunication systems
are managed from Sacramento. The San Diego area contains the Nation's
seventh-largest city adjacent to a heavily trafficked international
border, a busy port, tourist attractions, and major military
installations.
My bill would ensure that the 100 most populous urban areas of the
country are eligible to apply for UASI grants each year. The Department
of Homeland Security would then have the discretion to award funds to
as many applicants as it deems worthy and needy.
The bill would also require that the Department employ a
``sensitivity analysis'' in its grant process, to deal with uncertainty
in the mathematical models that it uses to evaluate the risk of
terrorism for urban areas. The Department's leadership could make
better-informed policy decisions if it used a sensitivity analysis to
better understand the effects of policy judgments in estimating risk
each year.
I urge my colleagues to consider and pass this bill, with its
important implications for making our Nation more secure against
terrorism.
______
By Mrs. CLINTON (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Lieberman):
S. 511. A bill to provide student borrowers with basic rights,
including the right to timely information about their loans and the
right to make fair and reasonable loan payments, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
give rights to student borrowers. The Student Borrower Bill of Rights
Act will provide student borrowers with five basic rights to protect
them when trying to repay their loans.
Students are borrowing now more than ever to pay for higher
education. Need-based grant aid has stagnated while college costs have
grown, resulting in more students borrowing and at higher levels. In
1993, less than one-half of students graduating from 4-year colleges
and universities had student loans. Now two-thirds are faced with this
debt.
Unlike other debt, young people take out student loans to invest in
themselves. Because these loans help to pay for college, student loans
can help people earn more money over the course of their lifetimes and
offer students greater choices in their careers. Student borrowers must
take the responsibility of repaying their debt seriously so that future
generations of students can have the chance to invest in themselves.
However, too many borrowers in New York, and around the country, are
overly burdened or treated unfairly as they repay their student loans.
That is why I am introducing the Student Borrower's Bill of Rights Act.
This bill will make it easier for students to repay loans and give
them a basic set of enforceable rights. This bill would give student
borrowers the right to fair monthly payments that do not exceed a
percentage of their incomes, as well as access to fair interest rates
and fees. This bill would also give students the right to shop in a
free marketplace for their lender and to borrow without exploitation.
Finally, the bill will give students access to better information about
their loans to provide students with better options during repayment.
The unfortunate truth is that student loan debt may even prevent
borrowers from pursuing a higher degree. According to the Nellie Mae
Corporation, 40 percent of college graduates cite alarming student loan
debt as the reason for not pursuing a graduate degree. Most
disturbingly, the burden of student loan debt alone can force graduates
out of important, but low-paying professions, such as social workers,
teachers and police officers. Our Nation cannot remain competitive in
the global economy if these trends continue.
I am happy to report that two of the provisions from the Student
Borrower Bill of Rights Act of the 109th Congress were enacted into law
through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense 2006.
These provisions, a repeal of the single holder rule and consolidation
between loan programs, will enable borrowers to choose lenders with
acceptable income-sensitive repayment terms when consolidating student
loans.
We need to make sure that student loans do not prevent students from
following their dreams. It is in our Nation's economic interest to
provide student borrowers with effective rights to make repayment of
student loans easier.
The rights found in my bill are long overdue. I urge my colleagues to
join me in supporting the Student Borrower Bill of Rights.
______
By Mr. HATCH:
S. 512. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study
the feasibility of enlaring the Arthur V. Watkins Dam Weber Basin
Project, Utah, to provide additional water for the Weber Basin Project
to fulfill the purposes for which that project was authorized; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, not long ago, Utahns suffered a long and
devastating drought, from which we have not fully recovered. The
drought has instilled in us the need to plan for the future and ensure
sound management of our water resources. For that reason, I rise to
introduce an important bill that will help make better use of Utah's
scarce water supply.
The Arthur V. Watkins Dam Enlargement Act of 2007 would authorize the
Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a feasibility study on raising the
height of the Arthur V. Watkins Dam in Weber County. The bill would
give the Bureau of Reclamation access to the dam to study it and make
adjustments as necessary to cater to the ever growing needs of Utah
citizens. This is no ordinary dam. It is roughly 14 miles long and
encloses a reservoir containing more than 200,000 acre-feet of water.
Thousands of Utahns rely on the water provided by the reservoir. And
the Weber Basin is one of Utah's fastest growing areas, making the need
to find additional water resources even more pressing. In my view,
expanding the dam is a simple and inexpensive way to increase water
storage capacity in an area that desperately needs it.
Moreover, last year, the Watkins Dam began to leak slightly. If the
dam were to breach, it would flood many hundreds of acres of farm and
grazing land, which would spell an agricultural disaster. This
legislation would provide the resources and the opportunity to address
quickly that looming problem, as well.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 512
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 ``Arthur V. Watkins Dam
Enlargement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Arthur V. Watkins Dam is a feature of the Weber Basin
Project, which was authorized by law on August 29, 1949.
(2) Increasing the height of Arthur V. Watkins Dam and
construction of pertinent facilities may provide additional
storage capacity for the development of additional water
supply for the Weber Basin Project for uses of municipal and
industrial water supply, flood control, fish and wildlife,
and
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF FEASIBILITY STUDY.
The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation, is authorized to conduct a feasibility study on
raising the height of Arthur V. Watkins Dam for the
development of additional storage to meet water supply needs
within the Weber Basin Project area and the Wasatch Front.
The feasibility study shall include such environmental
evaluation as required under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and a cost
allocation as required under the Reclamation Project Act of
1939 (43 U.S.C. 485 et seq.).
______
By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Bond):
S. 513. A bill to amend title 10, United States Code, to revive
previous authority on the use of the Armed Forces and the militia to
address interference with State and Federal law, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, last year, Congress quietly made it easier
for this
[[Page S1712]]
President or any President to declare martial law. That's right: In
legislation added at the Administration's request to last year's
massive Defense Authorization Bill, it has now become easier to bypass
longtime posse comitatus restrictions that prevent the Federal
Government's use of the military, including a federalized National
Guard, to perform domestic law enforcement duties. That change runs
counter to our founding principles, to the optimal use of our superb
National Guard here at home, and to whatever sensible reforms are
needed to improve our Nation's emergency response capabilities.
Today Senator Bond and I are introducing legislation to repeal these
unwarranted and perilous changes, which were made to a little-known law
called the Insurrection Act. Our amendment replaces every word, comma,
and period from the original act and returns it to its original form.
Repealing this ill-considered change in the Insurrection Act would
allow Congress to have a more orderly, thoughtful, open and
consultative discussion on whether such sensitive and massive powers
should be changed, if at all. It is difficult to see how any Senator
could disagree with the advisability of having a more transparent and
thoughtful approach to this sensitive issue.
The Insurrection Act is a Reconstruction-era law that provides the
major exemption from posse comitatus--the legal doctrine that bars the
use of the military for law enforcement directed at the American people
here at home. The Insurrection Act is designed to ensure that Federal
laws are enforced and to ensure that American citizens' basic
constitutional rights are respected and protected. When the
Insurrection Act is invoked, the President can--without the consent of
the respective governors--federalize the National Guard and use it,
along with the entire military, to carry out law enforcement duties.
Treading as this does across basic constitutional issues relating to
separation of power and to state and local sovereignty, this is a
sweeping grant of authority to the President. Because the use of the
military for domestic law enforcement is so sensitive an issue, the Act
has been invoked only sparingly since it was enacted.
The primary reason that the law has been invoked so rarely is that
there has been an inherent tension in the way it was crafted. Before it
was changed last year, the law was purposefully ambiguous about when
the President could invoke the Act in cases beyond a clear insurrection
or when a state clearly violated Federal law in its actions. Because
there was this useful ambiguity--a constructive friction in the law--a
President until now would have to use the power with great caution, and
with the impetus for appropriate consultation.
Yet by the time committee work was completed in the House and the
Senate on the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Authorization Bill, the law had
been changed and that useful ambiguity had vanished. In addition to the
cases of insurrection, the Act can now be invoked to restore public
order after a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, a disease outbreak,
or--and this is extremely broad--``other condition.'' Restoring public
order has suddenly become an entirely new purpose for the Insurrection
Act. And, as if to underscore this fundamental change, the conference
committee changed the name of the Act from ``Insurrection'' to
``Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order.''
This significant change was made without consulting the Nation's
Governors, mayors, sheriffs, or the National Guard Adjutants General.
It was made without consulting the other relevant policy committees in
the Senate and the House. It was merely slipped in, at the
Administration's request, as rider to a bill that was hundreds of pages
long. And when the Nation's Governors learned of the change and
expressed their strong opposition, they were ignored, and this
facilitation of presidential ability to federalize the National Guard--
even over the objections of the Nation's Governors--remained in the
bill that was signed into law by President Bush.
Now this President and future Presidents can more easily take control
of the National Guard and use our entire military apparatus for law
enforcement at home. In a situation like another Katrina or even a more
contained incident like a terrorist incident, the President will be
able to bring in Federal troops and take away control from the
Governors, the Emergency Managers, the Sheriffs, and the State
Adjutants General who know their communities best and are responsible
for responding.
What we should be doing instead is buttressing the response abilities
of these local and State officials. We should ensure every State has a
state-of-the-art emergency operations center, that our first responders
have the best equipment and training, and that the National Guard has
adequate equipment and available people at home to provide support. Any
Federal assets--military or otherwise--that might come into a State
should be in a supporting and not commanding role. The local officials
who know their communities are in the best positions to control the
situation, not the President or the military.
Some have argued that the changes made were only a clarification of
existing law or that the Insurrection Act already gave the power to the
President to use the military for law enforcement in an emergency. I
strongly disagree with that explanation, and so do the Governors,
Adjutants General, and a host of other officials. They see it, as
Senator Bond and I see it, as a tangible and troubling expansion of the
President's powers and a parallel reduction in State sovereignty. But
if some believe the original Act already gave the President this
expansive power, they should not object to bringing the law back to its
original form.
Repeal of the recent changes to the Insurrection Act will help ensure
that our National Guard and larger emergency response capabilities
remain strong. Repeal is crucial to ensuring that our Governors and
local officials remain in control and that they are consulted when
anyone considers overriding their authority. Repeal is simply essential
to ensuring the military is not used in a way that offends and
endangers some of our more cherished values and liberties.
We enter this effort with the strong support of Governors and of the
National Guard community, including the National Governors Association,
the National Guard Association, the Adjutants General Association, and
the Enlisted Association of the National Guard. I ask unanimous consent
that support letters from the National Governors Association, the
Adjutants General Association, and the Enlisted Association of the
National Guard be printed at this point in the Record.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
Last year's Insurrection Act rider reflects the general lack of close
oversight that has taken a toll on our system of government. I hope the
days of rubberstamping are over, and I hope the Senate will quickly
remedy this situation by considering and passing the bill that we
introduce today.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
National Guard Association of
the United States, Inc.,
Washington, DC, February 7, 2007.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Leahy and Bond: The National Guard
Association of the United States (NGAUS) is pleased to
support your efforts to repeal those provisions of Section
1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
(Public Law 109-364) enacted in the 109th Congress.
We believe those provisions removed the governors of the
several states from their constitutional role as the
commanders in chief of their respective states' National
Guard forces in responding to domestic emergencies, in both
an unnecessary and unwarranted manner.
We further believe that the exploitation of the language of
the Insurrection Act as a surreptitious method to gain
special presidential authority where clearly the Congress has
never intended the federal executive to hold sway is
``creative'' but ``poor'' public policy. Please spare no
effort to reverse this dangerous precedent.
Thank you for your reasoned and forthright protection of
the prerogatives of the governors and the National Guard.
Sincerely,
Stephen M. Koper,
Brigadier General (Ret),
President.
[[Page S1713]]
____
National Governors Association,
Washington, DC, February 5, 2007.
Hon.Patrick J. Leahy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher ``Kit'' Bond,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy and Senator Bond: Section 1076 of the
John Warner National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law
109-364) unnecessarily expanded the President's authority to
federalize the National Guard during certain emergencies and
disasters. The nation's governors opposed the inclusion of
this section in the bill because responsibility for
responding to disasters and other local emergencies to assure
the security and wellbeing of our residents along; with
managing the Guard within a state must rest with the
governor. The changes made in Section 1076 of the National
Defense Authorization Act undermine governors' authority over
the Guard, place the safety and welfare of citizens in
jeopardy and should be repealed.
Unless activated in purely federal service, the National
Guard is and should remain under state control with governors
as commanders-in-chief. The dual mission of the Guard, a
combat ready force that can be called on by the President and
a first responder in domestic emergencies or disasters under
the command and control of the governor, requires that
federal law clearly delineate chains of command for each
mission. The changes made to the ``Insurrection Act'' by
Section 1076 of the National Defense Authorization Act are
likely to confuse the issue of who commands the Guard during
a domestic emergency. By granting the President specific
authority to usurp the Guard during a natural disaster or
emergency without the consent of a governor, Section 1076
could result in confusion and an inability to respond to
residents' needs because it calls into question whether the
governor or the President has primary responsibility during a
domestic emergency.
The Insurrection Act, prior to passage of the National
Defense Authorization Act served the nation well as an
extraordinary remedy that allowed the President to take
control of the Guard in the most rare and exceptional of
cases. Despite the role of governors as commander-in-chief of
the Guard in their states, Section 1076 of the National
Defense Authorization Act was drafted without consultation
with governors and without full discussion or debate
regarding the ramifications of such a change on domestic
emergency response. We urge Congress to repeal the provision
in Section 1076 of the Act and open a dialogue with governors
regarding how to best enhance the effectiveness of the Guard
in responding to domestic disasters and emergencies.
Sincerely,
Governor Michael F. Easley,
Co-Lead on the National Guard.
Governor Mark Sanford,
Co-Lead on the National Guard.
____
Adjutants General Association of the United States,
Washington, DC. 2001, February 7, 2007.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Kit Bond,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
The Adjutants General Association of the United States
(AGAUS) represents the 54 Adjutants General of the fifty
states, three territories, and District of Columbia who are
responsible for training and readiness of Army and Air
National Guard units under their jurisdiction. We are united
in support of your legislation that repeals all language
contained in the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007 that significantly altered existing
law known as the Insurrection Act.
The language in the NDAA seriously upset the delicate
balance between Governors and the President in determining
the authority under which the National Guard will be used to
respond to domestic conditions endangering citizens. The
language significantly broadens the President ability to
declare martial law and mobilize the National Guard under
national command without consulting with the Governors. It
may in fact cause factions to pressure the President into ill
advised actions because the constructive ambiguity of the
original language which encourages consultation with
Governors no longer exists. For the National Guard this can
mean being federalized prematurely thereby losing important
capabilities available under State Active Duty and Title 32.
The National Guard has proven capable of operating flexibly
and responsively when retained under governor control. This
is well documented from the airport security mission in the
aftermath of 9/11 to sending 6,000 National Guard Soldiers
and Airmen to the southwest border in 2006 (with over 50,000
citizen-soldiers rapidly deployed under EMAC and Title 32 to
support Hurricane Katrina recovery sandwiched in between).
The language in NDAA 2207 would likely discourage using the
National Guard in these innovative, responsive, and cost
effective ways.
NDAA 2007 enabled something completely unnecessary without
committee or floor debate in either legislative chamber and
with explicit opposition from the Governors. Your bill
restores the Insurrection Act to a proper balance. Expect
willing and energetic support from the AGAUS.
Sincerely,
Roger P. Lempke,
Major General
President.
____
EANGUS,
Alexandria, VA, February 6, 2007.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
Hon. Christopher Bond,
U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
The Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
United States (EANGUS) is the only military service
association that represents the interests of every enlisted
soldier and airmen in the Army and Air National Guard. With a
constituency base of over 414,000 soldiers and airmen, their
families, and a large retiree membership, EANGUS engages
Capitol Hill on behalf of courageous Guard persons across
this nation.
On behalf of EANGUS, and the soldiers and airmen it
represents, I'd like to communicate our support for
legislation to repeal the changes to the Insurrection Act as
passed in Public Law 109-364, Section 1076, and to restore
the authority of the Governors as our founding fathers
designed over 230 years ago.
Public Law 109-364 stripped the nation's Governors of their
rightful authority to use the militia of the United States
(to wit, the National Guard) in times of natural disasters
and major public emergencies. Congress made this move without
any consultation with those Governors, duly elected by the
people of this great nation. It was an obvious knee-jerk
reaction to the events surrounding Hurricane Katrina in 2005,
yet without merit.
We applaud you for taking legislative steps to repeal this
law, and to restore to the Governors their rightful authority
over the militia when not in Federal service. The people of
America have a unspoken need for the National Guard in times
of public emergencies, and Washington is too far removed from
the challenges in each state. We look forward to working with
your staff as this legislation works its way into law.
Working for America's Best!
MSG Michael P. Cline, USA (Ret),
Executive Director.
____
S. 513
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REVIVAL OF PREVIOUS AUTHORITY ON USE OF ARMED
FORCES AND MILITIA TO ADDRESS INTERFERENCE WITH
STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.
(a) Repeal of Amendments Made by Public Law 109-364.--
Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (Public Law 109-364),
and the amendments made by that section, are repealed.
(b) Revival of Previous Authority.--The provisions of
chapter 15 of title 10, United States Code, that were amended
by section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, as such provisions
were in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of
the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2007, are hereby revived.
(c) Clerical Amendments.--
(1) Heading amendment.--The heading of chapter of 15 of
title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
``CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION''.
(2) Clerical amendments.--(A) The tables of chapters at the
beginning of subtitle A of title 10, United States Code, and
at the beginning of part I of such subtitle, are each amended
by striking the item relating to chapter 15 and inserting the
following new item:
``15. Insurrection...........................................331''.....
(B) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 15 of
such title is amended by striking the item relating to
section 333 and inserting the following new item:
``333. Interference with State and Federal law.''.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Obama, Mr. Biden, and Mr.
Kennedy):
S. 515. A bill to provide a mechanism for the determination on the
merits of the claims of claimants who met the class criteria in a civil
action relating to racial discrimination by the Department of
Agriculture but who were denied that determination; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am introducing the Pigford Claims
Remedy Act of 2007. This bill establishes a new cause of action for
those African-American farmers who filed late claim petitions as
required by the Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree, but whose petitions
were rejected.
These rejections have effectively barred African-American farmers
from the one process that was established to bring closure to the
claims of discrimination by African-American farmers, many of which
have been pending for decades.
My bill attempts to remedy what appears to be a lack of sufficient
notice,
[[Page S1714]]
indicated by the late applicants. It helps bring justice for farmers
who have historically been discriminated against while being mindful of
the constitutional constraints on Congress's authority. This bill will
provide a new cause of action that will assist those putative claimants
whose claims have never been evaluated on the merits.
Studies conducted by the USDA revealed the depth and impact of this
disparate treatment. In 1994, the Department of Agriculture
commissioned a study to analyze the treatment of minorities and women
in farm programs and payments.
In 1997, Secretary Glickman commissioned the Civil Rights Action Task
Force to look into allegations of racial discrimination in the agency's
loan program. In conjunction with this the Inspector General conducted
its own investigation into the allegations of disparate treatment.
Each report confirmed what African-American farmers already
experienced first hand. USDA failed to act to adequately address these
past wrongs. It took a class action lawsuit filed by African-American
farmers in 1997 to get USDA to respond.
The resulting Pigford v. Glickman Consent Decree was believed to be a
turning point in this unfortunate history. Hopes were high that
African-American farmers would finally be compensated for the history
of injustice. The consent decree was intended to provide a swift
resolution for the claims of discrimination that had gone unaddressed
for decades.
Yet, in a sad twist, the process that was created to provide a forum
for those whose claims had been shut out, has itself shut out more than
75,000 African American farmers who wish to have their claims of
discrimination heard.
Hearings before the House Subcommittee on the Constitution revealed
that almost 76,000 farmers who submitted late claim petitions were
denied entry because they could not show that extraordinary
circumstances prevented them from filing a timely complaint.
Despite the lack of knowledge about the consent decree, which was
cited by more than half of these petitioners, lack of notice was not
deemed an extraordinary circumstance under the consent decree. So these
petitioners are left without any recourse to have their claims of
discrimination heard on the merits. These people should be allowed to
have their case heard.
I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
______
By Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. Warner, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 516. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make
permanent the option of including combat pay when computing earned
income; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to make
the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act permanent. This measure
corrects a discrepancy in the Tax Code that penalizes certain service
men and women serving in combat situations.
To give my colleagues a bit of history and perspective on this: In
2003 I approached the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, and ranking member of the committee,
Senator Max Baucus, and asked them to join me in an effort to get a
fresh look at the overall picture of how our Tax Code treats our
military.
I was very pleased when they agreed to work with me, and was
delighted to jointly request an expedited study by the General
Accounting Office, GAO. It was an honor to work with them and their
staffs throughout this process.
The GAO raised many interesting findings but there was one especially
important issue that demanded our immediate attention. In a nutshell
service men and women who were serving in combat zones and receiving
nontaxable combat pay were not able to also take advantage of the
Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, and the Child Care Tax Credit.
The result was that thousands of our men and women serving in
combat--serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe--were seeing
a reduction or elimination of their EITC or child credit and in effect
losing money. In other words, the Tax Code had the impact of penalizing
them because they are serving in combat zones.
The GAO report characterized this result as an ``unintended
consequence.'' I saw it as just plain wrong and I am pleased to
introduce legislation to fix this glitch.
In 2004, we passed the Tax Relief for Americans in Combat Act. The
bill allowed men and women in uniform serving in combat to include
combat pay for the purpose of calculating their earned income and child
tax credit benefits. In other words, they would be able to continue
receiving their rightful combat pay exclusions while having the ability
to take full advantage of other tax credits.
However, this legislation only made permanent the child tax credit
benefit, while the earned income tax credit provision must be
continuously extended.
As of December 2006, the earned income provision was extended for
another year, but I believe we must work to permanently resolve this
glitch and ensure our men and women in combat are fairly treated.
I would like to take the opportunity to thank cosponsors Senator John
Warner and Senator Blanche Lincoln for their leadership and assistance
to help gamer support for this bill.
The urgency of this situation is highlighted especially when you
focus on those of our troops which this really affects. We're talking
about troops that tend to be in combat for more than 6 months, those in
lower pay grades, those who are married with children, and have little
or no savings or spousal income.
The GAO analysis suggested that the amount of the tax benefit loss
could be up to $4,500 for enlisted personnel and $3,200 for officers.
This is real money--make or break money--to many of these families that
are already under enormous stress.
I want to work in bipartisan fashion and permanently extend this tax
provision. This bill corrects the problem and lets our troops, risking
life and limb, know that while they are away fighting for us we will be
here in the Senate fighting for them and their families.
______
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 519. A bill to modernize and expand the reporting requirements
relating to child pornography, to expand cooperation in combating child
pornography, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by Senator
Schumer in introducing the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-
Online Act of 2007, otherwise known as the SAFE Act. This bill would
clarify and strengthen the requirement that has been a Federal law for
almost a decade for electronic communications providers to report
images of child pornography to the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children (NCMEC) and then law enforcement. Simply put, this
bill is designed reduce the sexual exploitation of our children, and
punish those who cause them physical and emotional harm through sexual
exploitation.
This bill would state specifically what information must be reported
by electronic communications providers to NCMEC; impose higher
penalties on companies that do not report child pornography; and
require the Department of Justice to report on the number of
investigation and convictions of sex offenders and purveyors of child
pornography. In addition, the bill would make the use of the Internet
for the exploitation of a child an aggravating factor to the underlying
offense that would add 10 years imprisonment to a convicted offender's
sentence.
Almost 20 years ago, President Reagan inaugurated the opening of the
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and called on the
Center to ``wake up America and attack the crisis of child
victimization.'' Today, thanks to the efforts of NCMEC and many others
in the public and private sectors, America is more conscious of the
dangers of child exploitation. Unfortunately, our children still face
significant threats from those who see their innocence as an
opportunity to do harm. The continuing victimization of our children is
readily and all too painfully apparent in the resurgence of child
pornography in our world via the Internet.
Technology has contributed to the greater distribution and
availability,
[[Page S1715]]
and, some believe, desire for child pornography. Cyberspace is host to
more than one million images of tens of thousands of children subjected
to sexual abuse and exploitation, according to a report by the Texas
State legislature. The same report estimated that the over 14 million
pornography sites on the Internet house an estimated one million
pornographic images of children with 200 new images being posted daily.
According to ECPAT International, a group dedicated to eliminating
the sexual exploitation of children, the production and distribution of
abuse images of children is estimated to be at least a 3 billion dollar
business annually in the U.S. alone. Of all the child pornography
images on the Internet, 55 percent are generated from the United
States, according to the same group, but these images are also produced
around the world.
Just today, the Associated Press reported that Austrian authorities
uncovered a major international child pornography ring involving more
than 2,360 suspects from 77 countries, including over 600 in the United
States, who paid to view videos of young children being sexually
abused. According to authorities, the children shown in the videos were
under the age of 14 and could be heard screaming in fear.
This investigation would not have happened without the good work of
an employee of a Vienna-based Internet file hosting service who noticed
the pornographic material during a routine check and then approached
authorities. The employee blocked access to the videos while recording
the I.P. addresses of people who continued to try to download the
material, and gave the details to authorities. Within a 24-hour period,
investigators recorded more than 8,000 hits from 2,361 computer I.P.
addresses in 77 countries ranging from Algeria to South Africa.
The Federal Government already has a system in place for electronic
communications providers to report these images to NCMEC. The Center is
directed by law to relay that information to local, State and Federal
law enforcement agencies. This reporting system has been useful, but it
is in need of several vital improvements.
Today, Federal law requires electronic communication service
providers to report child pornography they discover to NCMEC through
the CyberTipline, but the current reporting system does not specify
exactly what information should be reported. This failure to set forth
specific reporting requirements makes the current statute both
difficult to comply with and tough to enforce. This omission may have
led to less effective prosecution of child pornographers. During a
Senate Commerce Committee hearing I chaired last September, NCMEC
testified that, ``because there are no guidelines for the contents of
these reports, some [companies] do not send customer information that
allows NCMEC to identify a law enforcement jurisdiction. So potentially
valuable investigative leads are left to sit in the CyberTipline
database with no action taken.'' This is unacceptable.
This bill would address the problem by requiring that reporting
companies convey a defined set of information to the Center, which is
in large part the information that is provided to NCMEC today by the
nation's leading Internet service providers. Among other things, the
bill would require electronic communications providers to report
specific information about any individual involved in producing,
distributing, or receiving child pornography. In addition, it would
require reporting companies to provide NCMEC with the geographic
location of the involved individual such as the individual's physical
address and the IP address from which the individual connected to the
Internet.
To ensure that law enforcement officials have better odds of
prosecuting involved individuals, the bill would also require online
service providers to preserve all data that they report to NCMEC for at
least 180 days. The bill would help to ensure greater compliance with
the child pornography reporting requirements under Federal law by
increasing the penalties three-fold for knowing failure to report child
pornography to NCMEC. It would also move the reporting requirement from
title 42, which relates to the public's health and welfare, to title
18, our Federal criminal code. This is to underscore that a breach of
the reporting obligations constitutes a violation of criminal law. In
addition, the legislation would eliminate the legal liability of online
service providers for actions taken to comply with the child
pornography reporting requirements.
The goal of this legislation, is to ensure more thorough reporting of
child pornography to NCMEC. I expect that more and better information
provided to the Center will lead to a greater number of prosecutions
and enhanced protection of our children. However, let me stress that
this bill does not require surveillance by electronic communications
providers or require that they monitor the content of any
communication. The legislation also does not require electronic
communications providers to affirmatively seek out child pornography.
Rather, it requires online service providers to report child
pornography when they become aware of it, either through a report from
a subscriber or user, or through a discovery of the material by an
employee. As a result, the reporting requirement would protect children
while not imposing a financial or administrative burden on online
service providers.
To emphasize the heinous nature of these crimes, this bill would make
the use of the Internet in the commission of a crime of child
exploitation an aggravating factor that would add 10 years to the
offender's sentence. The Internet is likely the greatest invention of
the 21st century; however, it has also allowed these children to be
victimized again and again as these images are widely distributed via
the Internet. The fight to protect our children from exploitation has
moved from the playground to the Internet, and we must update our laws
to reflect this reality.
To address the international nature of child pornography, the bill
would permit NCMEC to share reports with foreign law enforcement
agencies, subject to approval by the Department of Justice. In
addition, the legislation would state the sense of Congress that the
executive branch should make child pornography a priority when engaging
in negotiations or talks with foreign countries.
The bill would authorize $25 million for our Nation's Internet Crimes
Against Children Task Forces, which is identical to the amount
requested by the Administration in its FY 2008 budget. NCMEC, the
National Sheriffs Association, and others believe that such funding
would significantly improve the efforts of local, State and Federal law
enforcement officials dedicated to identifying and prosecuting those
who use the Internet to prey upon our Nation's children.
Lastly, in order to aid law enforcement, the bill would reiterate the
position of the Administration that all suppliers of web site domain
names should investigate and correct inaccurate data regarding
registered domain names so that law enforcement can more easily locate
the hosts of such vile pictures of children. To aid Congress in
understanding the need for more resources or legislation to combat the
proliferation and distribution of child pornography, the bill would
require the Department of Justice to report on the number of
investigations, prosecutions and convictions of crimes involving the
sexual exploitation of children.
This is the second bill Senator Schumer and I have introduced this
session to protect our nation's children. Last month, we introduced the
Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual-Predators Act of 2007, known as
the KIDS Act, which would establish a database of e-mail addresses and
other Internet identifying information of convicted sex offenders. The
database information would then be available to commercial social
networking sites for the purpose of screening their sites' to ensure
convicted sex offender are not using the site to prey on children.
Protecting our children is a top priority for all members of
Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to eradicate the
victimization and exploitation of our children, the most innocent
members of society, by enacting the KIDS Act and the SAFE Act.
______
By Mrs. MURRAY (for herself and Ms. Cantwell):
S. 520. A bill to enhance ecosystem protection and the range of
outdoor opportunities protected by statute in the
[[Page S1716]]
Skykomish River valley of the State of Washington by designating
certain lower-elevation Federal lands as wilderness, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Wild Sky
Wilderness Act, a bill to protect some of Washington's most unique and
remarkable public lands for families today and for future generations.
For more than six years, citizens, community leaders, groups and
organizations have worked together with Representative Rick Larsen and
me to make this proposal a reality. I am proud to offer our bill here
in the Senate on their behalf. This is the fourth time I've introduced
this bill, and I'm really excited about finally moving this bill across
the finish line this year.
The Wild Sky Wilderness Act reflects the best values of my home State
of Washington--environmental protection, stewardship of our land, and
community partnership. It also respects the economic and recreational
interests of the people of Snohomish County. Our bill will protect an
important area while keeping it accessible for recreation and enjoyment
today and for generations to come.
For many years, I've been concerned by the rapid growth taking place
in Western Washington. It's no surprise that more people want to live
and work in the region, but we need to make sure that development does
not destroy the natural beauty that is such an important part of our
State's identity and our quality of life. We also need to ensure that
growth and development do not destroy native species of plants and
animals that have flourished here for centuries.
So several years ago, I began to consider new wilderness legislation.
I learned that we haven't added any new wilderness areas in Washington
state since 1984. I knew that if we were going to protect public land,
I wanted to do it in an inclusive way by seeking input from local
communities and stakeholders and working with them to develop a sound
proposal. I am proud to say that the fruits of our labor are now before
the United States Senate. My partner in the House of Representatives,
Congressman Larsen, and I worked alongside all of the local
stakeholders every step of the way to select these particular areas in
the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest.
The Wild Sky Wilderness will protect wildlife and promote clean water
by preserving the landscapes that host many native plants and animals.
We can still find many of the species that have historically called
this area home, but their populations are much smaller today. If these
animals are going to be here centuries from now, we must protect their
habitats. This wilderness designation is especially critical for
threatened species of salmon, steelhead and trout, and it will protect
the upper reaches of water to ensure prime habitat and clean water.
In addition, our bill ensures that the public will have access to
these remarkable, protected places. It's estimated that 2.4 million
people live nearby in King, Snohomish and Skagit counties. Our bill
will ensure they have new recreational opportunities in the Wild Sky
Wilderness. In this hectic, fast-paced time, more and more people and
their families are turning to outdoor recreation on our public lands.
This bill will provide new opportunities for the public to use this
land by directing the U.S. Forest Service to develop a series of hiking
and equestrian trails.
In addition to the environmental protections and recreational
opportunities, the Wild Sky Wilderness Area will be good for the local
economy. Every climber, hiker, hunter and angler setting out for the
Wild Sky Wilderness will be stopping at hotels, campgrounds,
restaurants, and stores in the gateway communities of Index, Skykomish,
Monroe, Miller River, Startup, Grotto, Baring, Sultan, and Gold Bar.
Over the years, so many people have worked hard to make this bill
possible. I can't name all of them, but I do want to recognize one
great leader who is not with us to see the progress she helped make
possible, Karen Fant. Anyone involved in wilderness protection knows
the legacy that Karen has left us through her years of advocacy for our
state's natural places. Early on, Karen recognized the need to bring
together and involve local people in efforts to protect wilderness. She
co-founded and directed the Washington Wilderness Coalition, and she
was instrumental in forming a statewide community of wilderness
advocates.
To those who knew her--and especially those lucky enough to sample
her famous cookies--Karen provided never-ending inspiration and
enthusiasm to continue working to protect wilderness and wild lands in
the Pacific Northwest and beyond.
I cannot summarize Karen's amazing four decades of service, but I
think some of her many friends said it best when they wrote:
``There are thousands of miles of trails and millions of
acres of wilderness that are protected due to her work and
the work of others she organized to make a difference. As we
walk these trails and gain renewal from these lands, we
should all remember the work we shared and the fun and
camaraderie we all experienced with Karen.''
With Karen's passing, we've lost a pioneer in the fight to protect
our wild spaces, but thankfully she's left a clear trail and a
generation of inspired, empowered advocates to continue her work.
I urge my colleagues to help my State take a great step forward in
protecting our environment, improving recreation and supporting
economic development by supporting the Wild Sky Wilderness Act.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 520
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 ``Wild Sky Wilderness Act of
2007''.
SEC. 2. ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION
SYSTEM.
(a) Additions.--The following Federal lands in the State of
Washington are hereby designated as wilderness and,
therefore, as components of the National Wilderness
Preservation System: certain lands which comprise
approximately 106,000 acres, as generally depicted on a map
entitled ``Wild Sky Wilderness Proposal'' and dated February
6, 2007, which shall be known as the ``Wild Sky Wilderness''.
(b) Maps and Legal Descriptions.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Agriculture shall file a map and a legal description for the
wilderness area designated under this Act with the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the
Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives. The
map and description shall have the same force and effect as
if included in this Act, except that the Secretary of
Agriculture may correct clerical and typographical errors in
the legal description and map. The map and legal description
shall be on file and available for public inspection in the
office of the Chief of the Forest Service, Department of
Agriculture.
SEC. 3. ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Subject to valid existing rights, lands designated as
wilderness by this Act shall be managed by the Secretary of
Agriculture in accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C.
1131 et seq.) and this Act, except that, with respect to any
wilderness areas designated by this Act, any reference in the
Wilderness Act to the effective date of the Wilderness Act
shall be deemed to be a reference to the date of enactment of
this Act.
(2) To fulfill the purposes of this Act and the Wilderness
Act and to achieve administrative efficiencies, the Secretary
of Agriculture may manage the area designated by this Act as
a comprehensive part of the larger complex of adjacent and
nearby wilderness areas.
(b) New Trails.--
(1) The Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with
interested parties and shall establish a trail plan for
Forest Service lands in order to develop--
(A) a system of hiking and equestrian trails within the
wilderness designated by this Act in a manner consistent with
the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
(B) a system of trails adjacent to or to provide access to
the wilderness designated by this Act.
(2) Within two years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall complete a report on
the implementation of the trail plan required under this Act.
This report shall include the identification of priority
trails for development.
(c) Repeater Site.--Within the Wild Sky Wilderness, the
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to use helicopter
access to construct and maintain a joint Forest Service and
Snohomish County telecommunications repeater site, in
compliance with a Forest Service approved communications site
plan, for the purposes of improving communications for
safety, health, and emergency services.
[[Page S1717]]
(d) Float Plane Access.--As provided by section 4(d)(1) of
the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(d)(1)), the use of
floatplanes on Lake Isabel, where such use has already become
established, shall be permitted to continue subject to such
reasonable restrictions as the Secretary of Agriculture
determines to be desirable.
(e) Evergreen Mountain Lookout.--The designation under this
Act shall not preclude the operation and maintenance of the
existing Evergreen Mountain Lookout in the same manner and
degree in which the operation and maintenance of such lookout
was occurring as of the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR LAND ACQUISITION.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized
to acquire lands and interests therein, by purchase,
donation, or exchange, and shall give priority consideration
to those lands identified as ``Priority Acquisition Lands''
on the map described in section 2(a). The boundaries of the
Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest and the Wild Sky
Wilderness shall be adjusted to encompass any lands acquired
pursuant to this section.
(b) Access.--Consistent with section 5(a) of the Wilderness
Act (16 U.S.C. 1134(a)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall
ensure adequate access to private inholdings within the Wild
Sky Wilderness.
(c) Appraisal.--Valuation of private lands shall be
determined without reference to any restrictions on access or
use which arise out of designation as a wilderness area as a
result of this Act.
SEC. 5. LAND EXCHANGES.
The Secretary of Agriculture shall exchange lands and
interests in lands, as generally depicted on a map entitled
``Chelan County Public Utility District Exchange'' and dated
May 22, 2002, with the Chelan County Public Utility District
in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) If the Chelan County Public Utility District, within
ninety days after the date of enactment of this Act, offers
to the Secretary of Agriculture approximately 371.8 acres
within the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest in the State
of Washington, the Secretary shall accept such lands.
(2) Upon acceptance of title by the Secretary of
Agriculture to such lands and interests therein, the
Secretary of Agriculture shall convey to the Chelan County
Public Utility District a permanent easement, including
helicopter access, consistent with such levels as used as of
date of enactment, to maintain an existing telemetry site to
monitor snow pack on 1.82 acres on the Wenatchee National
Forest in the State of Washington.
(3) The exchange directed by this Act shall be consummated
if Chelan County Public Utility District conveys title
acceptable to the Secretary and provided there is no
hazardous material on the site, which is objectionable to the
Secretary.
(4) In the event Chelan County Public Utility District
determines there is no longer a need to maintain a telemetry
site to monitor the snow pack for calculating expected runoff
into the Lake Chelan hydroelectric project and the
hydroelectric projects in the Columbia River Basin, the
Secretary shall be notified in writing and the easement shall
be extinguished and all rights conveyed by this exchange
shall revert to the United States.
____________________