[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.

                          ____________________