[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 27 (Tuesday, February 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1903-S1922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 559. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require
a voter-verified permanent paper ballot under title III of such Act,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the
Voting Integrity and Verification Act, VIVA, of 2007. The time has come
to ensure that the vote of each American is counted and counted as they
intended. VIVA will get us closer to that goal by mandating the use of
voter-
[[Page S1904]]
verified paper ballots in any election with Federal candidates.
It was President Johnson who helped Black Americans win the right to
vote, who said, ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised
by man . . .'' Indeed, it is the ability of a nation, like ours, to
hold free and fair elections, which guarantees our government is based
on consent of the governed; and, majority rule with minority rights.
It is the guarantee of a ballot that cools the impassioned hearts of
many in the electorate, even when a majority of citizens disagree with
their government over a war, court decision, or action by lawmakers or
the executive branch.
For any democracy to long withstand these external and internal
conflicts, it is vital that the governed have unwavering faith that
their votes will be counted. Ever since the 2000 Presidential recount
in Florida and, more recently, the disputed congressional election in
Sarasota, an increasingly high number of Americans have come to lack
confidence in the way our States record, tally, and verify votes.
If this Congress doesn't act to restore voter confidence, I fear our
democracy--in the words of philosopher and educator Robert Maynard
Hutchins--could suffer ``a slow extinction from apathy, indifference
and undernourishment.''
VIVA authorizes $300 million in Federal funding to assist in the
implementation of the requirements in this bill. This bill establishes
mandatory security requirements for voting systems used in Federal
elections. It also will provide for routine, random audits of paper
ballots and make it illegal for a chief State election administration
official to take an active part in a political campaign.
With another Presidential election on the horizon, we need to fix
this--and fix it now. Let us never have another election after which
citizens are left to doubt its legitimacy.
______
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Isakson, and Mr.
Pryor):
S. 560. A bill to create a Rural Policing Institute as part of the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I have often referred to our rural
communities as ``the forgotten America.'' Indeed, rural America is the
backbone of our country--but is too often neglected by policymakers and
politicians who have lost touch with people in the heartland. Nowhere
is this neglect felt more acutely than in small-town law enforcement
agencies--which have been confronted with decreased funding, increased
homeland security responsibilities, and the great toll of a meth
epidemic that is devastating rural America.
Many people do not realize that most American law enforcement
agencies serve rural communities or small towns. Indeed, of the nearly
17,000 police agencies in the United States, 90 percent serve a
population of under 25,000 and operate with fewer than 50 sworn
officers.
I am well aware of the difficulties small town law enforcement
agencies face day-in, day-out. When I was the attorney general of
Colorado, I had the honor to work with some of America's finest law
enforcement officials--many of them from rural Colorado. Men like Jerry
Martin, the Dolores County Sherriff, who have consistently been able to
do more with less. But the pressure they face is great.
The growing demands on rural law enforcement, and shrinking budgets,
have hit training programs particularly hard. Many rural law
enforcement agencies simply do not have the budget to provide officers
with adequate training. Furthermore, even those agencies that can come
up with the money simply can't afford to take their police officers off
the beat long enough to get additional training.
That is where the Rural Policing Institute comes in. FLETC does a
fantastic job training Federal, State, and local law enforcement
officials. But FLETC does not have enough resources dedicated
specifically toward training rural law enforcement officials. So the
Rural Policing Institute would: evaluate the needs of rural and tribal
law enforcement agencies; develop training programs designed to address
the needs of rural law enforcement agencies, with a focus on combating
meth, domestic violence, and school violence; export those training
programs to rural and tribal law enforcement agencies; and conduct
outreach to ensure that the training programs reach rural law
enforcement agencies.
As Colorado's attorney general, I learned that a small investment in
law enforcement training can pay great dividends. This legislation
would do just that--by ensuring that our rural and small town law
enforcement officers have the training they need to protect their
communities.
I am proud of my roots in rural southern Colorado. Communities like
mine are the heart of our Nation--and the men and women who protect
them deserve the best possible training.
I thank Senators Chambliss, Isakson, and Pryor for cosponsoring this
legislation.
______
By Mr. BUNNING (for himself, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr.
Brownback, Mr. Burr, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeMint, Mr. Domenici, Mr.
Hatch, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Smith, Mr.
Vitter, and Mr. Warner):
S. 561. A bill to repeal the sunset of the Economic Growth and Tax
Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 with respect to the expansion of the
adoption credit and adoption assistance programs; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the American
family and the need to extend important tax relief provisions to help
make adoption more affordable. The high cost of adoptions causes many
couples to dismiss adoption as too expensive. By helping to ease this
financial burden, we can encourage the development of more stable
families and provide a brighter future for thousands of children.
These important goals prompted us to act in 2001, when we passed
important adoption incentives in the form of tax credits. However,
these provisions are set to expire or ``sunset'' after December 31,
2010.
Our entire society benefits when children are placed with loving,
permanent families. That is why today I am introducing the Adoption Tax
Relief Guarantee Act with Senator Ben Nelson.
The Adoption Tax Relief Guarantee Act will permanently extend the
2001 adoption incentives allowing those Americans who adopt a child to
continue to receive a credit in the amount of their qualified expenses
and guarantees the maximum $10,000 credit for those who adopt children
with special needs. This legislation will help middle class families
break the financial barriers and successfully adopt a child, especially
those children with special needs who are in particular need of a
loving home.
I am pleased that Senators from both sides of the aisle have
cosponsored this legislation, and that it has received endorsement from
the National Council for Adoption and RESOLVE: the National Infertility
Association. The adoption tax credit and assistance programs have
already helped countless children and families by making adoption more
affordable. We owe it to future generations of children in need to make
these provisions permanent.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Adoption Tax Relief
Guarantee Act, 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. 561
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 Adoption Tax Relief
Guarantee Act''.
SEC. 2. REPEAL OF APPLICABILITY OF SUNSET OF THE ECONOMIC
GROWTH AND TAX RELIEF RECONCILIATION ACT OF
2001 WITH RESPECT TO ADOPTION CREDIT AND
ADOPTION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.
Section 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 is amended by adding at the end
the following new subsection:
``(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
amendments made by section 202 (relating to expansion of
adoption credit and adoption assistance programs).''.
______
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 562. A bill to provide for flexibility and improvements in
elementary and
[[Page S1905]]
secondary education, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the No Child
Left Behind Flexibility and Improvements Act. I am pleased to be joined
in this effort by my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe. Our
legislation would give greater local control and flexibility to Maine
and other States in their efforts to implement the No Child Left Behind
Act, NCLB, and provides common sense reforms in keeping with the worthy
goals of NCLB.
Since NCLB was enacted in 2002, I have had the opportunity to meet
with numerous Maine educators to discuss their concerns with the law.
In response to their concerns, in March 2004, Senator Snowe and I
commissioned the Maine NCLB Task Force to examine the implementation
issues facing Maine under both NCLB and the Maine Learning Results. Our
task force included members from every county in the State and had
superintendents, teachers, principals, school board members, parents,
business leaders, former State legislators, special education experts,
assessment specialists, officials from the Maine Department of
Education, a former Maine Commissioner of Education, and the Dean from
the University of Maine's College of Education and Human Development.
After a year of study, the Task Force presented us with its final
report outlining recommendations for possible statutory and regulatory
changes to the Act. These recommendations form the basis of the
legislation that we are introducing today.
First, our legislation would provide new flexibility for teachers of
multiple subjects at the secondary school level to help them meet the
``highly qualified teacher'' requirements. Unfortunately, the current
regulations place undue burdens on teachers at small and rural schools
who often teach multiple subjects due to staffing needs, and on special
education teachers who work with students on a variety of subjects
throughout the day. Under the bill, provided these teachers are highly
qualified for one subject they teach, they will be provided additional
time and less burdensome avenues to satisfy the remaining requirements.
Second, our legislation would provide greater flexibility to States
in the ways that they demonstrate student progress in meeting State
education standards. Specifically, it would permit States to use a
cohort growth model, which tracks the progress of the same group of
students over time. It would also permit the use of an ``indexing''
model, where progress is measured based on the number of students whose
scores improve from, for example, a ``below-basic'' to a ``basic''
level, and not simply on the number of students who cross the
``proficient'' line.
Third, our legislation would provide schools with better notice
regarding possible performance issues, allowing schools a chance to
identify and work with a particular group of students before being
identified. It would expand the existing ``safe-harbor'' provisions to
allow more schools to qualify for this important protection. The
changes made in our bill are in keeping with what assessment experts
and teachers know--that significant gains in academic achievement tend
to occur gradually and over time.
Fourth, our legislation would allow the members of a special
education student's IEP team to determine the best assessment for that
individual student, and would permit the student's performance on that
assessment to count for all NCLB purposes.
One reason this change is so important for Maine is that we have
small student populations and Maine has chosen a very small subgroup
size--only 20 students. I was very concerned to hear reports that in
some schools, special education students fear that they are being
blamed for their school not making adequate yearly progress. While the
statute explicitly prohibits the disaggregation of student data if it
would jeopardize student privacy, I am concerned to hear that this is
not working out in practice.
This legislative change is also based on principles of fairness and
common sense. Many times, it simply does not make sense to require a
special needs student to take a grade-level assessment that everyone
knows he or she is not ready to take. Many special education students
are referred for special education services precisely because they
cannot meet grade-level expectations. Allowing the IEP team to
determine the best test for each special student will bring an
important improvement to the Act.
Fifth, the legislation addresses my concern about the statute's
current requirement that all schools reach 100 percent proficiency by
2013-2014. Our bill would require the Secretary of Education to review
progress by the States toward meeting this goal every 3 years, and
would allow her to modify the timeline as necessary.
Our legislation is a comprehensive effort to provide greater
flexibility and commonsense modifications to address the key NCLB
challenges facing Maine, and other States. I look forward to working
with my colleagues on these issues during the upcoming NCLB
reauthorization process.
______
By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 563. A bill to extend the deadline by which State identification
documents shall comply with certain minimum standards and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to
address the growing concern among States regarding the Real ID Act of
2005, which requires States to meet minimum security standards before
citizens can use drivers' licenses for Federal purposes. As the
deadline for compliance with Real ID rapidly approaches, States are
beginning to send a very clear message that they are deeply concerned
that they will not be able to meet these standards. The bill I
introduce today recognizes those concerns by giving everyone more time
to devise a way to make drivers' licenses more secure without unduly
burdening State governments and without threatening privacy and civil
liberties.
To begin, some background may be useful. The 9/11 Commission, finding
that all but one of the 9/11 hijackers had acquired some form of U.S.
identification, recommended that the Federal Government should set
standards for the issuance of drivers' licenses. Taking up that
recommendation I worked with a bipartisan group of Senators, especially
Senator Lieberman, to craft a provision in the 2004 Intelligence Reform
and Terrorism Prevention Act that would accomplish this goal. This
provision called for the creation of a committee composed of experts
from the Federal Government, from State governments, and from other
interested parties such as privacy and civil liberties advocates and
information technology groups. This committee was charged with
developing a means of providing secure identification that protected
privacy and civil liberties and respected the role of States in issuing
these documents.
The committee diligently began meeting, but before it could complete
its work, the House of Representatives attached the Real ID Act of 2005
to an emergency war supplemental bill, thus halting this productive
effort. Unlike our intelligence reform bill, the Real ID Act of 2005
did not include States and other interested parties in the rulemaking
process and instead instructed the Department of Homeland Security to
simply write its own regulations. Nearly 2 years later, we still have
not seen these regulations in spite of a looming May 2008 deadline for
States to be in compliance with the Real ID Act.
As States begin work this year on their 2008 budgets, they still have
no idea what the regulations will require of them. They do know, from a
study released in 2006 by the National Governors Association, that the
cost to States to implement Real ID could total more than $11 billion
over the first 5 years. As a result, many States--my home State of
Maine included--have passed resolutions that have sent the message to
Washington that they cannot and will not implement Real ID by the May
2008 deadline.
My bill has two primary objectives: 1. It gives us the time and
flexibility we need to come up with an effective system to provide
secure drivers' licenses; and 2. it gets the experts from the States
and from the technology industry and from the privacy and civil
liberties advocates back at the table and gives them a chance to make
these regulations work.
[[Page S1906]]
There are three main provisions in this bill: First, the bill
provides that States will not have to be Real ID compliant until 2
years after the final regulations are promulgated. This means that no
matter how long it takes the Department of Homeland Security to finish
these regulations, States will have a full 2 years to implement them.
Most likely that will mean an extension from 2008 to 2010.
Second, the bill gives the Secretary of Homeland Security more
flexibility to waive certain requirements of Real ID if an aspect of
the program proves technically difficult to implement. Under the
current law, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the discretion to
waive the requirements for Real ID on a State-by-State basis if the
State cannot comply for justifiable reasons. Because it is possible
that some of the technological advances necessary for Real ID may not
be in place when compliance is required, the bill will provide the
Secretary specific authority to waive compliance with specific
requirements if these technological systems are not up and running--
relieving the States from the burden of seeking exemptions from Real ID
for technological reasons not within their control.
Third, it reconstitutes the committee that we created in 2004 and
that was making good progress in its discussions. The committee would
be required to look at the regulations published by the Department of
Homeland Security and to make suggestions for modifications to meet the
concerns of States, privacy advocates, and the other interested
parties. The committee would report these suggestions to the Department
of Homeland Security and to Congress. The Department of Homeland
Security would either have to make these modifications or explain why
it chose not to do so. In addition, the committee could recommend to
Congress statutory changes that would mitigate concerns that could not
be addressed by modifications to the regulations.
This bill gives us the time and the information that Congress and the
Department of Homeland Security need to better implement the
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission in order to make our drivers'
licenses secure so that they cannot be used again as a part of a plot
to attack our country. This bill does this in a way that does not
rewind the clock three years but instead keeps us moving forward to a
more secure America.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to address Real ID and to put us back on track in protecting our
privacy, protecting our liberty, and protecting our country.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 564. A bill to modernize water resources planning, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources
Planning and Modernization Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined in
introducing this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr.
McCain. We have worked together for some time to modernize the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued
commitment to this issue.
I was pleased that the Senate made significant progress last Congress
and included many key reforms in the Senate-passed Water Resources
Development Act. I again thank my colleagues who cosponsored a
successful independent peer review amendment: the Senator from
Delaware, Mr. Carper; the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman; the
former Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords; and the Senators from Maine,
Ms. Collins and Ms. Snowe. I also want to acknowledge the Senator from
California, Mrs. Boxer, for her support for this amendment. In
addition, I appreciate the efforts to include reform provisions in the
underlying bill by the then-Environment and Public Works Committee
Chairs and Ranking Members: the former Senator from Vermont, Mr.
Jeffords; the Senator from Montana, Mr. Baucus; the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe; and the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond. After
six years of efforts on this issue, we made significant progress.
However, negotiations between the House and Senate stalled and no
conference report was agreed to.
By introducing this bill today, I am renewing my efforts to ensure
that the Corps of Engineers' water resources planning is brought into
the 21st century. As we all know, Hurricane Katrina produced one of the
most tragic and costly natural disasters in our Nation's history. Water
resources projects authorized by Congress and planned by the Corps of
Engineers contributed to the loss of vital coastal wetlands (which can
provide natural buffers from storm surge), intensified the storm surge
into New Orleans, and encouraged development in flood-prone areas.
The flawed project planning, however, did not end there. Floodwalls
and levees that the Corps built to protect New Orleans failed
catastrophically during Hurricane Katrina. It is now well recognized
and indeed, the Corps has acknowledged--that flawed engineering and
construction led to those failures and the flooding of much of New
Orleans.
Over the past decade, dozens of governmental and scientific studies
have documented other flaws in Corps of Engineers' project planning.
Most recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified
that recent Corps studies ``did not provide a reasonable basis for
decision-making'' because they were ``were fraught with errors,
mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and
outdated data.'' The GAO found that the recurring problems at the
agency were ``systemic in nature and therefore prevalent throughout the
Corps' Civil Works portfolio.''
We can, and must, do better.
Congress should not authorize additional Army Corps projects until it
has considered and passed the reforms included in the Water Resources
Planning and Modernization Act. From ensuring large projects are sound
to using natural resources to protect our communities, modernizing
water resources policy is a national priority.
The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 represents
a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and
significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed
or low priority U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a
way to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With
support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers
Union, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers,
Association of State Wetland Managers, Defenders of Wildlife,
Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, National
Wildlife Federation, Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra
Club, Surfrider Foundation, and the World Wildlife Fund, the bill has
the backing of a committed and diverse coalition.
The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 can be
broadly divided into five parts: ensuring sound projects and
responsible spending, valuing our natural resources, focusing our
resources, identifying vulnerabilities, and updating the Army Corps of
Engineer's planning guidelines.
To ensure that Corps water resources projects are sound, the bill
requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over
$40 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected state, those
which the head of a federal agency has determined may lead to a
significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has
found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review
should not increase the length of time required for project planning
but would protect the public--both those in the vicinity of massive
projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects. The Director
of Independent Review can also require independent review of the
technical designs and construction of flood damage reduction projects
to ensure public safety and welfare. The independent review provision
is identical to that supported by a majority of my colleagues last
Congress and included in the Senate-passed WRDA.
We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as
wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help
buffer communities from storms, filter contaminants out of our water,
support vibrant economies, and provide vital fish and wildlife habitat.
Recognizing the role
[[Page S1907]]
of these natural systems, the Water Resources Planning and
Modernization Act of 2007 brings the Corps' 1986 mitigation standards
into line with their regulatory program by requiring Corps water
resources projects to meet the same mitigation standard that is
required of all private citizens and other entities under the Clean
Water Act. Where States have adopted stronger mitigation standards, the
Corps must meet those standards. I feel very strongly that the Federal
government should be able to live up to this requirement.
Unfortunately, all too often, the Corps has not completed required
mitigation. This legislation will make sure that mitigation is
completed, that the true costs of mitigation are accounted for in Corps
projects, and that the public is able to track the progress of
mitigation projects.
Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To
address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources
Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing
Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects
within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The
prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal Register for the
public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill,
comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied
perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the
prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the
tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing
public transparency in decision making--both needed and reasonable
improvements to the status quo.
Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be
a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources
Council to identify and report to Congress on the nation's
vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to
human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the
country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements
to the nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better
address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a
government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are
available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we
must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such
action, the legislation specifies that the Administration will submit a
response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the
recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90
days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have
this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage
reduction programs, languish like others before it.
The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water
projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the Corps'
principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not
been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water
Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of
Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the Corps' planning
principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars. Updating the
project planning process should involve consideration of a variety of
issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and the same
discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple steps such
as these will lead to more precise estimates of project costs and
benefits, a first step to considering whether a project should move
forward.
Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help
restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal
and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the
Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects,
while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in
1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress
ensuring that the Corps sought ``actual reform, in the further
prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for
actual reform is stronger than ever.
My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock
Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do
not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of
those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management
cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the Corps can
better contribute to our environment and our economy--without wasting
taxpayer dollars or endangering public safety.
I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but
unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need
for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future Corps projects
produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities,
and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the
Corps the tools it needs to do a better job and focuses the attention
of Congress on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and
the environment deserve.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 564
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 ``Water Resources Planning and
Modernization Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Water
Resources Council established under section 101 of the Water
Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MODERNIZATION
POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States that all water
resources projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers
shall--
(1) reflect national priorities for flood damage reduction,
navigation, and ecosystem restoration; and
(2) seek to avoid the unwise use of floodplains, minimize
vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain must be
used, protect and restore the extent and functions of natural
systems, and mitigate any unavoidable damage to natural
systems.
SEC. 4. MEETING THE NATION'S WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES.
(a) Report on the Nation's Flood Risks.--Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Council
shall submit to the President and Congress a report
describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage
from flooding and related storm damage, including the risk to
human life, the risk to property, and the comparative risks
faced by different regions of the country. The report shall
assess the extent to which the Nation's programs relating to
flooding are addressing flood risk reduction priorities and
the extent to which those programs may unintentionally be
encouraging development and economic activity in floodprone
areas, and shall provide recommendations for improving those
programs in reducing and responding to flood risks. Not later
than 90 days after the report required by this subsection is
published in the Federal Register, the Administration shall
submit to Congress a report that responds to the
recommendations of the Council and includes proposals to
implement recommendations of the Council.
(b) Prioritization of Water Resources Projects.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit to Congress
an initial report containing a prioritized list of each water
resources project of the Corps of Engineers that is not being
carried out under a continuing authorities program,
categorized by project type and recommendations with respect
to a process to compare all water resources projects across
project type. The Council shall submit to Congress a
prioritized list of water resources projects of the Corps of
Engineers every 2 years following submission of the initial
report. In preparing the prioritization of projects, the
Council shall endeavor to balance stability in the rankings
from year to year with recognizing newly authorized projects.
Each report prepared under this paragraph shall provide
documentation and description of any criteria used in
addition to those set forth in paragraph (2) for comparing
water resources projects and the assumptions upon which those
criteria are based.
(2) Project prioritization criteria.--In preparing a report
under paragraph (1), the Council shall prioritize each water
resource project of the Corps of Engineers based on the
extent to which the project meets at least the following
criteria:
(A) For flood damage reduction projects, the extent to
which such a project--
(i) addresses the most critical flood damage reduction
needs of the United States as identified by the Council;
(ii) does not encourage new development or intensified
economic activity in flood prone areas and avoids adverse
environmental impacts; and
[[Page S1908]]
(iii) provides significantly increased benefits to the
United States through the protection of human life, property,
economic activity, or ecosystem services.
(B) For navigation projects, the extent to which such a
project--
(i) produces a net economic benefit to the United States
based on a high level of certainty that any projected trends
upon which the project is based will be realized;
(ii) addresses priority navigation needs of the United
States identified through comprehensive, regional port
planning; and
(iii) minimizes adverse environmental impacts.
(C) For environmental restoration projects, the extent to
which such a project--
(i) restores the natural hydrologic processes and spatial
extent of an aquatic habitat;
(ii) is self-sustaining; and
(iii) is cost-effective or produces economic benefits.
(3) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that to
promote effective prioritization of water resources projects,
no project should be authorized for construction unless a
final Chief's report recommending construction has been
submitted to Congress, and annual appropriations for the
Corps of Engineers' Continuing Authorities Programs should be
distributed by the Corps of Engineers to those projects with
the highest degree of design merit and the greatest degree of
need, consistent with the applicable criteria established
under paragraph (2).
(c) Modernizing Water Resources Planning Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Council, in coordination with the National Academy of
Sciences, shall propose revisions to the planning principles
and guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps of
Engineers to improve the process by which the Corps of
Engineers analyzes and evaluates water projects.
(2) Public participation.--The Council shall solicit public
and expert comment and testimony regarding proposed revisions
and shall subject proposed revisions to public notice and
comment.
(3) Revisions.--Revisions proposed by the Council shall
improve water resources project planning through, among other
things--
(A) focusing Federal dollars on the highest water resources
priorities of the United States;
(B) requiring the use of modern economic principles and
analytical techniques, credible schedules for project
construction, and current discount rates as used by all other
Federal agencies;
(C) discouraging any project that induces new development
or intensified economic activity in flood prone areas, and
eliminating biases and disincentives to providing projects to
low-income communities, including fully accounting for the
prevention of loss of life as required by section 904 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281);
(D) eliminating biases and disincentives that discourage
the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources
development and management, and fully accounting for the
flood protection and other values of healthy natural systems;
(E) utilizing a comprehensive, regional approach to port
planning;
(F) promoting environmental restoration projects that
reestablish natural processes;
(G) analyzing and incorporating lessons learned from recent
studies of Corps of Engineers programs and recent disasters
such as Hurricane Katrina and the Great Midwest Flood of
1993; and
(H) ensuring the effective implementation of the National
Water Resources Planning and Modernization Policy established
by this Act.
(d) Revision of Planning Guidelines.--Not later than 180
days after submission of the proposed revisions required by
subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement the
recommendations of the Council by incorporating the proposed
revisions into the planning principles and guidelines,
regulations, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers. These
revisions shall be subject to public notice and comment
pursuant to subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
``Administrative Procedure Act''). Effective beginning on the
date on which the Secretary carries out the first revision
under this paragraph, the Corps of Engineers shall not be
subject to--
(1) subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17); and
(2) any provision of the guidelines entitled ``Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related
Land Resources Implementation Studies'' and dated 1983, to
the extent that such a provision conflicts with a guideline
revised by the Secretary.
(e) Availability.--Each report prepared under this section
shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to
the Committees on Environment and Public Works and
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.
(f) Water Resources Council.--Section 101 of the Water
Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a) is amended in the
first sentence by inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Chairperson of the Council on Environmental
Quality,'' after ``Secretary of Transportation,''.
(g) Funding.--In carrying out this section, the Council
shall use funds made available for the general operating
expenses of the Corps of Engineers.
SEC. 5. INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Construction activities.--The term ``construction
activities'' means development of detailed engineering and
design specifications during the preconstruction engineering
and design phase and the engineering and design phase of a
water resources project carried out by the Corps of
Engineers, and other activities carried out on a water
resources project prior to completion of the construction and
to turning the project over to the local cost-share partner.
(2) Project study.--The term ``project study'' means a
feasibility report, reevaluation report, or environmental
impact statement prepared by the Corps of Engineers.
(b) Director of Independent Peer Review.--The Secretary
shall appoint in the Office of the Secretary a Director of
Independent Review. The Director shall be selected from among
individuals who are distinguished experts in engineering,
hydrology, biology, economics, or another discipline related
to water resources management. The Secretary shall ensure, to
the maximum extent practicable, that the Director does not
have a financial, professional, or other conflict of interest
with projects subject to review. The Director of Independent
Review shall carry out the duties set forth in this section
and such other duties as the Secretary deems appropriate.
(c) Sound Project Planning.--
(1) Projects subject to planning review.--The Secretary
shall ensure that each project study for a water resources
project shall be reviewed by an independent panel of experts
established under this subsection if--
(A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than
$40,000,000, including mitigation costs;
(B) the Governor of a State in which the water resources
project is located in whole or in part, or the Governor of a
State within the drainage basin in which a water resources
project is located and that would be directly affected
economically or environmentally as a result of the project,
requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an
independent panel of experts for the project;
(C) the head of a Federal agency with authority to review
the project determines that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on public safety, or on
environmental, fish and wildlife, historical, cultural, or
other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency, and
requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an
independent panel of experts for the project; or
(D) the Secretary determines on his or her own initiative,
or shall determine within 30 days of receipt of a written
request for a controversy determination by any party, that
the project is controversial because--
(i) there is a significant dispute regarding the size,
nature, potential safety risks, or effects of the project; or
(ii) there is a significant dispute regarding the economic,
or environmental costs or benefits of the project.
(2) Project planning review panels.--
(A) Project planning review panel membership.--For each
water resources project subject to review under this
subsection, the Director of Independent Review shall
establish a panel of independent experts that shall be
composed of not less than 5 nor more than 9 independent
experts (including at least 1 engineer, 1 hydrologist, 1
biologist, and 1 economist) who represent a range of areas of
expertise. The Director of Independent Review shall apply the
National Academy of Science's policy for selecting committee
members to ensure that members have no conflict with the
project being reviewed, and shall consult with the National
Academy of Sciences in developing lists of individuals to
serve on panels of experts under this subsection. An
individual serving on a panel under this subsection shall be
compensated at a rate of pay to be determined by the
Secretary, and shall be allowed travel expenses.
(B) Duties of project planning review panels.--An
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection shall review the project study, receive from the
public written and oral comments concerning the project
study, and submit a written report to the Secretary that
shall contain the panel's conclusions and recommendations
regarding project study issues identified as significant by
the panel, including issues such as--
(i) economic and environmental assumptions and projections;
(ii) project evaluation data;
(iii) economic or environmental analyses;
(iv) engineering analyses;
(v) formulation of alternative plans;
(vi) methods for integrating risk and uncertainty;
(vii) models used in evaluation of economic or
environmental impacts of proposed projects; and
(viii) any related biological opinions.
(C) Project planning review record.--
(i) In general.--After receiving a report from an
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection, the Secretary shall take into consideration any
recommendations contained in the report and
[[Page S1909]]
shall immediately make the report available to the public on
the Internet.
(ii) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall prepare a
written explanation of any recommendations of the independent
panel of experts established under this subsection not
adopted by the Secretary. Recommendations and findings of the
independent panel of experts rejected without good cause
shown, as determined by judicial review, shall be given equal
deference as the recommendations and findings of the
Secretary during a judicial proceeding relating to the water
resources project.
(iii) Submission to congress and public availability.--The
report of the independent panel of experts established under
this subsection and the written explanation of the Secretary
required by clause (ii) shall be included with the report of
the Chief of Engineers to Congress, shall be published in the
Federal Register, and shall be made available to the public
on the Internet.
(D) Deadlines for project planning reviews.--
(i) In general.--Independent review of a project study
shall be completed prior to the completion of any Chief of
Engineers report for a specific water resources project.
(ii) Deadline for project planning review panel studies.--
An independent panel of experts established under this
subsection shall complete its review of the project study and
submit to the Secretary a report not later than 180 days
after the date of establishment of the panel, or not later
than 90 days after the close of the public comment period on
a draft project study that includes a preferred alternative,
whichever is later. The Secretary may extend these deadlines
for good cause.
(iii) Failure to complete review and report.--If an
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection does not submit to the Secretary a report by the
deadline established by clause (ii), the Chief of Engineers
may continue project planning without delay.
(iv) Duration of panels.--An independent panel of experts
established under this subsection shall terminate on the date
of submission of the report by the panel. Panels may be
established as early in the planning process as deemed
appropriate by the Director of Independent Review, but shall
be appointed no later than 90 days before the release for
public comment of a draft study subject to review under
subsection (c)(1)(A), and not later than 30 days after a
determination that review is necessary under subsection
(c)(1)(B), (c)(1)(C), or (c)(1)(D).
(E) Effect on existing guidance.--The project planning
review required by this subsection shall be deemed to satisfy
any external review required by Engineering Circular 1105-2-
408 (31 May 2005) on Peer Review of Decision Documents.
(d) Safety Assurance.--
(1) Projects subject to safety assurance review.--The
Secretary shall ensure that the construction activities for
any flood damage reduction project shall be reviewed by an
independent panel of experts established under this
subsection if the Director of Independent Review makes a
determination that an independent review is necessary to
ensure public health, safety, and welfare on any project--
(A) for which the reliability of performance under
emergency conditions is critical;
(B) that uses innovative materials or techniques;
(C) for which the project design is lacking in redundancy,
or that has a unique construction sequencing or a short or
overlapping design construction schedule; or
(D) other than a project described in subparagraphs (A)
through (C), as the Director of Independent Review determines
to be appropriate.
(2) Safety assurance review panels.--At the appropriate
point in the development of detailed engineering and design
specifications for each water resources project subject to
review under this subsection, the Director of Independent
Review shall establish an independent panel of experts to
review and report to the Secretary on the adequacy of
construction activities for the project. An independent panel
of experts under this subsection shall be composed of not
less than 5 nor more than 9 independent experts selected from
among individuals who are distinguished experts in
engineering, hydrology, or other pertinent disciplines. The
Director of Independent Review shall apply the National
Academy of Science's policy for selecting committee members
to ensure that panel members have no conflict with the
project being reviewed. An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this subsection shall be compensated at a rate
of pay to be determined by the Secretary, and shall be
allowed travel expenses.
(3) Deadlines for safety assurance reviews.--An independent
panel of experts established under this subsection shall
submit a written report to the Secretary on the adequacy of
the construction activities prior to the initiation of
physical construction and periodically thereafter until
construction activities are completed on a publicly available
schedule determined by the Director of Independent Review for
the purposes of assuring the public safety. The Director of
Independent Review shall ensure that these reviews be carried
out in a way to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare, while not causing unnecessary delays in construction
activities.
(4) Safety assurance review record.--After receiving a
written report from an independent panel of experts
established under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
(A) take into consideration recommendations contained in
the report, provide a written explanation of recommendations
not adopted, and immediately make the report and explanation
available to the public on the Internet; and
(B) submit the report to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives.
(e) Expenses.--
(1) In general.--The costs of an independent panel of
experts established under subsection (c) or (d) shall be a
Federal expense and shall not exceed--
(A) $250,000, if the total cost of the project in current
year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
(B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current
year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary, at the written request of the
Director of Independent Review, may waive the cost
limitations under paragraph (1) if the Secretary determines
appropriate.
(f) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress
a report describing the implementation of this section.
(g) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect any authority of the Secretary to cause
or conduct a peer review of the engineering, scientific, or
technical basis of any water resources project in existence
on the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 6. MITIGATION.
(a) Mitigation.--Section 906(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``to the Congress'' and
inserting ``to Congress, and shall not choose a project
alternative in any final record of decision, environmental
impact statement, or environmental assessment,'', and by
inserting in the second sentence ``and other habitat types''
after ``bottomland hardwood forests''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Mitigation requirements.--
``(A) Mitigation.--To mitigate losses to flood damage
reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from a
water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that
mitigation for each water resources project complies fully
with the mitigation standards and policies established by
each State in which the project is located. Under no
circumstances shall the mitigation required for a water
resources project be less than would be required of a private
party or other entity under section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
``(B) Mitigation plan.--The specific mitigation plan for a
water resources project required under paragraph (1) shall
include, at a minimum--
``(i) a detailed plan to monitor mitigation implementation
and ecological success, including the designation of the
entities that will be responsible for monitoring;
``(ii) specific ecological success criteria by which the
mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful,
prepared in consultation with the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Director of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each
State in which the project is located;
``(iii) a detailed description of the land and interests in
land to be acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a
determination that land and interests are available for
acquisition;
``(iv) sufficient detail regarding the chosen mitigation
sites, and types and amount of restoration activities to be
conducted, to permit a thorough evaluation of the likelihood
of the ecological success and aquatic and terrestrial
resource functions and habitat values that will result from
the plan; and
``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions if
monitoring demonstrates that mitigation efforts are not
achieving ecological success as described in the ecological
success criteria.
``(4) Determination of mitigation success.--
``(A) In general.--Mitigation under this subsection shall
be considered to be successful at the time at which
monitoring demonstrates that the mitigation has met the
ecological success criteria established in the mitigation
plan.
``(B) Evaluation and reporting.--The Secretary shall
consult annually with the Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Director of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each State in which
the project is located, on each water resources project
requiring mitigation to determine whether mitigation
monitoring for that project demonstrates that the project is
achieving, or has achieved, ecological success. Not later
than 60 days after the date of completion of the annual
consultation, the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service or the Director of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, as appropriate, shall, and each State in
which the project is located may, submit to the Secretary a
report that describes--
``(i) the ecological success of the mitigation as of the
date of the report;
``(ii) the likelihood that the mitigation will achieve
ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan;
[[Page S1910]]
``(iii) the projected timeline for achieving that success;
and
``(iv) any recommendations for improving the likelihood of
success.
The Secretary shall respond in writing to the substance and
recommendations contained in such reports not later than 30
days after the date of receipt. Mitigation monitoring shall
continue until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation
has met the ecological success criteria.''.
(b) Mitigation Tracking System.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
recordkeeping system to track, for each water resources
project constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary
and for each permit issued under section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
(A) the quantity and type of wetland and other habitat
types affected by the project, project operation, or
permitted activity;
(B) the quantity and type of mitigation required for the
project, project operation, or permitted activity;
(C) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been
completed for the project, project operation, or permitted
activity; and
(D) the status of monitoring for the mitigation carried out
for the project, project operation, or permitted activity.
(2) Required information and organization.--The
recordkeeping system shall--
(A) include information on impacts and mitigation described
in paragraph (1) that occur after December 31, 1969; and
(B) be organized by watershed, project, permit application,
and zip code.
(3) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall make
information contained in the recordkeeping system available
to the public on the Internet.
SEC. 7. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Chief's Reports.--The Chief of Engineers shall not
submit a Chief's report to Congress recommending construction
of a water resources project until that Chief's report has
been reviewed and approved by the Secretary of the Army.
(b) Project Tracking.--The Secretary shall assign a unique
tracking number to each water resources project, to be used
by each Federal agency throughout the life of the project.
(c) Report Repository.--The Secretary shall maintain at the
Library of Congress a copy of each final feasibility study,
final environmental impact statement, final reevaluation
report, record of decision, and report to Congress prepared
by the Corps of Engineers. These documents shall be made
available to the public for review, and electronic copies of
those documents shall be permanently available, through the
Internet website of the Corps of Engineers.
______
By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Nelson of
Florida, Mr. Martinez, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Salazar,
and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 565. A bill to expand and enhance postbaccalaureate opportunities
at Hispanic-serving institutions, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next
generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This
legislation is critical if we, as a nation, are going to continue to
compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong
and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure
quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am
introducing, along with my colleague, Senator Hutchison, the Next
Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2007. This legislation
is supported by the Hispanic Associations of Colleges and Universities,
and the Hispanic Education Coalition, a coalition of 25 organizations
dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40
million Hispanics living in the United States. I ask unanimous consent
that their letters of support appear in the text following this
statement. Senators Bill Nelson, Martinez, Clinton, Cornyn, Salazar,
Boxer, and Feinstein have joined in this effort as cosponsors.
According to Census Bureau data, the Hispanic population in the
United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000, and continues
to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent Census data puts the
Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14
percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest
minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will
grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4
Americans will be of Hispanic origin.
Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor
force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the
next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age,
the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast
pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020,
through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching
working age.
Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the
level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population.
I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original
Hispanic-Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of
the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational
opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving
Institutions (HSIs) have made significant strides in increasing the
number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college.
Although Hispanic-serving institutions account for only 5 percent of
all institutions of higher education in the United States, HSIs enroll
over half (51 percent) of all Hispanics pursuing higher education
degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates
than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non-
Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7
percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in
postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States.
We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of
Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past
few years, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees
awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all
doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by
Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of
Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity
of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number
of Hispanic students.
The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation
will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by
establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate
degree opportunities at HSIs.
Current law only provides support for two-year and four-year Hispanic
Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate
fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities
improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education,
and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This
legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate
program for HSIs.
Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total
kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project
that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16
million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education
with the resources and supports to build capacity and serve the
increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next
generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce
and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent
that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
HACU,
San Antonio, TX, February 8, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the Hispanic
Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) and its 450
member institutions, I want to express my sincerest
appreciation for your efforts in re-introducing the ``Next
Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act.'' You have long
been a champion of Hispanic higher education issues and we
appreciate all that you do.
This landmark piece of legislation, first introduced in the
108th Congress with bipartisan support, will help to
eradicate the chronic shortage of Hispanic professionals
lacking advanced degrees. As we both know, the number of
Hispanics earning post-baccalaureate degrees at HSIs between
the years of 1991 and 2000 increased by 136 percent, thus
showing the demand and need to increase graduate program
capacity at these institutions. Of the more than 270 HSIs
serving half
[[Page S1911]]
of the 1.8 million Hispanics enrolled in higher education
programs, only 44 have graduate programs in place. This
failure to provide adequate graduate opportunity is a
travesty to the Hispanic community and should be addressed.
The eagerly anticipated re-introduction of The Next
Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act in the 110th
Congress will be a central focus of HACU's 2007 Legislative
Agenda. As the only nationally recognized voice for our
country's fast-growing community of HSIs, HACU fully
recognizes the critical importance of this proposal to
dramatically expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities
for the country's youngest and largest ethnic population.
Your past success at winning support for HSIs in Title V of
the Higher Education Act and your new efforts to build upon
that success with the inclusion of a new graduate education
component are extraordinary testimony to your leadership in
opening the doors to college and career success for this and
future generations of our youth.
Please call upon our offices for any assistance in support
of your important work, which is so critical to building a
better future for our Hispanic communities and for our
country.
Respectfully,
Antonio R. Flores,
President and CEO.
____
Hispanic Education Coalition,
February 8, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the Hispanic Education
Coalition and its twenty-five member organizations, we
express our strong support for your re-introduction of the
``Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act.'' You
have long been a champion of Hispanic higher education, and
we appreciate all that you do to secure equal educational
opportunities for Latinos.
The Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions Act will
help to eradicate the chronic shortage of Hispanic
professionals with advanced degrees. The number of Hispanics
earning post-baccalaureate degrees at HSIs between the years
of 1991 and 2000 increased by 136 percent, demonstrating a
high demand and need to increase graduate program capacity at
these institutions. Out of 262 HACU member HSIs that serve
over 50% of the 1.6 million Hispanics enrolled in higher
education programs, only 44 currently have graduate programs
in place. The Next Generation Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Act will help to remedy this deficit.
The Hispanic Education Coalition and its member
organizations commend your leadership and will work with you
to secure final passage of this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Peter Zamora,
Acting Regional Counsel, MALDEF.
Roger Rosenthal,
Executive Director, Migrant Legal Action Program.
S. 565
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 ``Next Generation Hispanic-
Serving Institutions Act''.
SEC. 2. POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC
AMERICANS.
(a) Establishment of Program.--Title V of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating part B as part C;
(2) by redesignating sections 511 through 518 as sections
521 through 528, respectively; and
(3) by inserting after section 505 (20 U.S.C. 1101d) the
following new part:
``PART B--PROMOTING POSTBACCALAUREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HISPANIC
AMERICANS
``SEC. 511. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
``(1) According to the United States Census, by the year
2050 one in four Americans will be of Hispanic origin.
``(2) Despite the dramatic increase in the Hispanic
population in the United States, the National Center for
Education Statistics reported that in 1999, Hispanics
accounted for only 4 percent of the master's degrees, 3
percent of the doctor's degrees, and 5 percent of first-
professional degrees awarded in the United States.
``(3) Although Hispanics constitute 10 percent of the
college enrollment in the United States, they comprise only 3
percent of instructional faculty in colleges and
universities.
``(4) The future capacity for research and advanced study
in the United States will require increasing the number of
Hispanics pursuing postbaccalaureate studies.
``(5) Hispanic-serving institutions are leading the Nation
in increasing the number of Hispanics attaining graduate and
professional degrees.
``(6) Among Hispanics who received master's degrees in
1999-2000, 25 percent earned them at Hispanic-serving
institutions.
``(7) Between 1991 and 2000, the number of Hispanic
students earning master's degrees at Hispanic-serving
institutions grew 136 percent, the number receiving doctor's
degrees grew by 85 percent, and the number earning first-
professional degrees grew by 47 percent.
``(8) It is in the national interest to expand the capacity
of Hispanic-serving institutions to offer graduate and
professional degree programs.
``(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this part are--
``(1) to expand postbaccalaureate educational opportunities
for, and improve the academic attainment of, Hispanic
students; and
``(2) to expand and enhance the postbaccalaureate academic
offerings, and program quality, that are educating the
majority of Hispanic college students and helping large
numbers of Hispanic students and other low-income individuals
complete postsecondary degrees.
``SEC. 512. PROGRAM AUTHORITY AND ELIGIBILITY.
``(a) Program Authorized.--Subject to the availability of
funds appropriated to carry out this part, the Secretary
shall award competitive grants to Hispanic-serving
institutions that offer postbaccalaureate certifications or
degrees.
``(b) Eligibility.--In this part, an `eligible institution'
means an institution of higher education that--
``(1) is an eligible institution under section 502; and
``(2) offers a postbaccalaureate certificate or degree
granting program.
``SEC. 513. AUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES.
``Grants awarded under this part shall be used for 1 or
more of the following activities:
``(1) Purchase, rental, or lease of scientific or
laboratory equipment for educational purposes, including
instructional and research purposes.
``(2) Construction, maintenance, renovation, and
improvement in classroom, library, laboratory, and other
instructional facilities, including purchase or rental of
telecommunications technology equipment or services.
``(3) Purchase of library books, periodicals, technical and
other scientific journals, microfilm, microfiche, and other
educational materials, including telecommunications program
materials.
``(4) Support for needy postbaccalaureate students
including outreach, academic support services, mentoring,
scholarships, fellowships, and other financial assistance to
permit the enrollment of such students in postbaccalaureate
certificate and degree granting programs.
``(5) Support of faculty exchanges, faculty development,
faculty research, curriculum development, and academic
instruction.
``(6) Creating or improving facilities for Internet or
other distance learning academic instruction capabilities,
including purchase or rental of telecommunications technology
equipment or services.
``(7) Collaboration with other institutions of higher
education to expand postbaccalaureate certificate and degree
offerings.
``(8) Other activities proposed in the application
submitted pursuant to section 514 that--
``(A) contribute to carrying out the purposes of this part;
and
``(B) are approved by the Secretary as part of the review
and acceptance of such application.
``SEC. 514. APPLICATION AND DURATION.
``(a) Application.--Any eligible institution may apply for
a grant under this part by submitting an application to the
Secretary at such time and in such manner as determined by
the Secretary. Such application shall demonstrate how the
grant funds will be used to improve postbaccalaureate
education opportunities for Hispanic and low-income students
and will lead to greater financial independence.
``(b) Duration.--Grants under this part shall be awarded
for a period not to exceed 5 years.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not award more than
1 grant under this part in any fiscal year to any Hispanic-
serving institution.''.
(b) Cooperative Arrangements.--Section 524(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (as redesignated by subsection (a)(2))
is amended by inserting ``and section 513'' after ``section
503''.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 528(a) of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (as redesignated by subsection
(a)(2)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Authorizations.--
``(1) Part a.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out part A of this title $175,000,000 for fiscal year
2008 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years.
``(2) Part b.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out part B of this title $125,000,000 for fiscal year
2008 and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 4
succeeding fiscal years.''.
______
By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Mr. McCain) (by request):
S. 567. A bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2008, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator McCain and I are today introducing,
by request, the administration's proposed
[[Page S1912]]
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. As is the case
with any bill that is introduced by request, we introduce this bill for
the purpose of placing the administration's proposals before Congress
and the public without expressing our own views on the substance of
these proposals. As chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services
Committee, we look forward to giving the administration's requested
legislation our most careful review and thoughtful consideration.
______
By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 569. A bill to accelerate efforts to develop vaccines for diseases
primarily affecting developing countries and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Vaccines for the
Future Act of 2007.
This legislation seeks to accelerate the development of vaccines for
HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases that are major
killers of people living in developing countries. HIV/AIDS, malaria,
and tuberculosis are devastating sub-Saharan Africa where, combined,
they claim as many as 5 million lives a year. Yet there are no vaccines
for these diseases.
Vaccines are one of the most effective public health measures of the
20th century. With U.S. leadership, the global community has eradicated
smallpox, and we are close to eradicating polio. Vaccines for diseases
such as measles and tetanus have dramatically reduced childhood
mortality worldwide. These public health victories benefit every
country.
Vaccines for diseases such as AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and for
other, less well-known diseases would save millions of lives.
Partnerships between governments, private foundations, and businesses
have made significant strides toward the development of vaccines, but
much more needs to be done.
One of the biggest challenges is that drug companies do not have a
strong financial incentive to invest in the development of vaccines for
these diseases because there is no reliable market for them. In other
words, vaccine manufacturers are reluctant to commit the hundreds of
millions of dollars necessary to create a new vaccine with no obvious
way to recoup their investment. What is needed is the promise of market
demand to encourage industry to develop the vaccines for these
diseases.
Five countries--Britain, Italy, Norway, Russia, and Canada--along
with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, have developed such a
market solution. On February 9, 2007, in Rome, they pledged $1.5
billion for an initiative called an Advance Market Commitment, AMC,
aimed at encouraging pharmaceutical companies to develop vaccines for
diseases caused by the pneumococcus bacterium, such as pneumonia and
meningitis. These diseases claim the lives of an estimated 1 million
children per year, most of whom live in the developing world. Through
this AMC, these countries and the Gates Foundation have pledged to
purchase pneumococcal vaccines that will work in poor countries.
Although a vaccine for pneumococcal disease exists in the United
States and other developed countries, this version is not effective
against the strains prevalent in developing countries. By committing to
purchase large quantities of a successful vaccine beforehand, the
Advance Market Commitment aims to bridge the gap between the vaccine
makers' research costs and the future sales needed to cover the costs
of their investment. Experts are hopeful that this initiative could
accelerate by a decade the widespread use of a pneumococcal vaccine
specific to the developing world and could prevent the deaths of an
estimated 5.4 million children by 2030.
In 2005, the United States, at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland,
agreed to encourage the development of vaccines for diseases affecting
the developing world and endorsed the Advance Market Commitment
concept. I believe that, with continued strong U.S. leadership, we can
save many more lives in this new century. Because of the promise that
vaccines hold, I am introducing the ``Vaccines for the Future Act of
2007.'' My bill would authorize the United States to contribute to the
Advance Market Commitment for pneumococcal vaccines. Equally important,
it would require the administration to develop a comprehensive strategy
and make a commitment to speed development, testing, and distribution
of life-saving vaccines for other diseases, including AIDS, malaria,
and tuberculosis, through innovative financial incentives like the AMC.
I am hopeful that my fellow Senators will join me in supporting this
legislation.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 569
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 ``Vaccines for the Future Act
of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) AIDS.--The term ``AIDS'' has the meaning given the term
in section 104A(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22
U.S.C. 2151b-2).
(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Appropriations and the Committee on Foreign Relations of
the Senate and the Committee on Appropriations and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
(3) Developing country.--The term ``developing country''
means a country that the World Bank determines to be a
country with a lower middle income or less.
(4) HIV/AIDS.--The term ``HIV/AIDS'' has the meaning given
the term in section 104A(g) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b-2).
(5) GAVI alliance.--The term ``GAVI Alliance'' means the
public-private partnership launched in 2000 for the purpose
of saving the lives of children and protecting the health of
all people through the widespread use of vaccines.
(6) Neglected disease.--The term ``neglected disease''
means--
(A) HIV/AIDS;
(B) malaria;
(C) tuberculosis; or
(D) any infectious disease that, according to the World
Health Organization, afflicts over 1,000,000 people and
causes more than 250,000 deaths each year in developing
countries.
(7) World bank.--The term ``World Bank'' means the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Immunization is an inexpensive and effective public
health intervention that has had a profound life-saving
impact around the world.
(2) During the 20th century, global immunization efforts
have successfully led to the eradication of smallpox and the
elimination of polio from the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and
most of Asia. Vaccines for diseases such as measles and
tetanus have dramatically reduced childhood mortality
worldwide, and vaccines for diseases such as influenza,
pneumonia, and hepatitis help prevent sickness and death of
adults as well as children.
(3) According to the World Health Organization, combined,
AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria kill more than 5,000,000
people a year, most of whom are in the developing world, yet
there are no vaccines for these diseases.
(4) Other, less well-known neglected diseases, such as
pneumococcal disease, lymphatic filariasis, leptospirosis,
leprosy, and onchocerciasis, result in severe health
consequences for individuals afflicted with them, such as
anemia, blindness, malnutrition and impaired childhood growth
and development. In addition, these diseases result in lost
productivity in developing countries costing in the billions
of dollars.
(5) Infants, children, and adolescents are among the
populations hardest hit by AIDS, malaria, and many other
neglected diseases. Nearly 11,000,000 children under age 5
die each year due to these diseases, primarily in developing
countries. Existing and future vaccines that target children
could prevent more than 2,500,000 of these illnesses and
deaths.
(6) The devastating impact of neglected diseases in
developing countries threatens the political and economic
stability of these countries and constitutes a threat to
United States economic and security interests.
(7) Of more than $100,000,000,000 spent on health research
and development across the world, only $6,000,000,000 is
spent each year on diseases that are specific to developing
countries, most of which is from public and philanthropic
sources.
(8) Despite the devastating impact these and other diseases
have on developing countries, it is estimated that only 10
percent of the world's research and development on health is
targeted on diseases affecting 90 percent of the world's
population.
(9) Because the developing country market is small and
unpredictable, there is an insufficient private sector
investment in research
[[Page S1913]]
for vaccines for neglected diseases that disproportionately
affect populations in developing countries.
(10) Creating a broad range of economic incentives to
increase private sector research on neglected diseases is
critical to the development of vaccines for neglected
diseases.
(11) In recognition of the need for more economic
incentives to encourage private sector investment in vaccines
for neglected diseases, an international group of health,
technical, and economic experts has developed a framework for
an advance market commitment pilot program for pneumococcal
vaccines. Pneumococcal disease, a cause of pneumonia and
meningitis, kills 1,600,000 people every year, an estimated
1,000,000 of whom are children under age 5. This pilot
program will seek to stimulate investments to develop and
produce pneumococcal vaccines that could prevent between
500,000 and 700,000 deaths by the year 2020.
(12) On February 9, 2007, 5 countries, Britain, Canada,
Italy, Norway, and Russia, together with the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation, pledged, under a plan called an Advance
Market Commitment, to purchase pneumococcal vaccines now
under development. Together, these countries and the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation have committed $1,500,000,000 for
this program. Experts believe that this initiative could
accelerate by a decade the widespread use of such a vaccine
in the developing world and could prevent the deaths of an
estimated 5,400,000 children by 2030.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON SUPPORT FOR NEGLECTED DISEASES.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the President should continue to encourage efforts to
support the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, a virtual
consortium of scientists and organizations committed to
accelerating the development of an effective HIV vaccine;
(2) the United States should work with the Global Fund to
Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the Joint United
Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (``UNAIDS''), the World Health
Organization, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, the
GAVI Alliance, and the World Bank to ensure that all
countries heavily affected by the HIV/AIDS pandemic have
national AIDS vaccine plans;
(3) the United States should support and encourage the
carrying out of the agreements of the Group of 8 made at the
2005 Summit at Gleneagles, Scotland, to increase direct
investment and create market incentives, including through
public-private partnerships and advance market commitments,
to complement public research in the development of vaccines,
microbicides, and drugs for HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis,
and other neglected diseases;
(4) the United States should support the development of
effective vaccines for infants, children, and adolescents as
early as is medically and ethically appropriate, in order to
avoid significant delays in the availability of pediatric
vaccines at the cost of thousands of lives;
(5) the United States should continue supporting the work
of the GAVI Alliance and the Global Fund for Children's
Vaccines as appropriate and effective vehicles to purchase
and distribute vaccines for neglected diseases at an
affordable price once such vaccines are discovered in order
to distribute them to the developing world;
(6) the United States should work with others in the
international community to address the multiple obstacles to
the development of vaccines for neglected diseases including
scientific barriers, insufficient economic incentives,
protracted regulatory procedures, lack of delivery systems
for products once developed, liability risks, and
intellectual property rights; and
(7) the United States should contribute to the pilot
Advance Market Commitment for pneumococcal vaccines launched
in Rome on February 9, 2007, which could prevent some 500,000
to 700,000 child deaths by the year 2020 and an estimated
5,400,000 child deaths by 2030.
SEC. 5. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Partnerships between governments and the private sector
(including foundations, universities, corporations,
community-based organizations, and other nongovernmental
organizations) are playing a critical role in the area of
global health, particularly in the fight against neglected
diseases, including HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.
(2) These public-private partnerships improve the delivery
of health services in developing countries and accelerate
research and development of vaccines and other preventive
medical technologies essential to combating infectious
diseases that disproportionately kill people in developing
countries.
(3) These public-private partnerships maximize the unique
capabilities of each sector while combining financial and
other resources, scientific knowledge, and expertise toward
common goals which cannot be achieved by either sector alone.
(4) Public-private partnerships such as the International
AIDS Vaccine Initiative, PATH's Malaria Vaccine Initiative,
and the Global TB Drug Facility are playing cutting edge
roles in the efforts to develop vaccines for these diseases.
(5) Public-private partnerships serve as incentives to the
research and development of vaccines for neglected diseases
by providing biotechnology companies, which often have no
experience in developing countries, with technical assistance
and on the ground support for clinical trials of the vaccine
through the various stages of development.
(6) Sustaining existing public-private partnerships and
building new ones where needed are essential to the success
of the efforts by the United States and others in the
international community to find a cure for these and other
neglected diseases.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the sustainment and promotion of public-private
partnerships must be a central element of the strategy
pursued by the United States to create effective incentives
for the development of vaccines and other preventive medical
technologies for neglected diseases debilitating the
developing world; and
(2) the United States Government should take steps to
address the obstacles to the development of these
technologies by increasing investment in research and
development and establishing market and other incentives.
SEC. 6. COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY FOR ACCELERATING THE
DEVELOPMENT OF VACCINES FOR NEGLECTED DISEASES.
(a) Requirement for Strategy.--The President shall
establish a comprehensive strategy to accelerate efforts to
develop vaccines and microbicides for neglected diseases such
as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis. Such strategy shall--
(1) expand public-private partnerships and seek to leverage
resources from other countries and the private sector;
(2) include the negotiation of advance market commitments
and other initiatives to create economic incentives for the
research, development, and manufacturing of vaccines and
microbicides for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and other
neglected diseases;
(3) address intellectual property issues surrounding the
development of vaccines and microbicides for neglected
diseases;
(4) maximize United States capabilities to support clinical
trials of vaccines and microbicides in developing countries;
(5) address the issue of regulatory approval of such
vaccines and microbicides, whether through the Commissioner
of the Food and Drug Administration, or the World Health
Organization, or another entity; and
(6) expand the purchase and delivery of existing vaccines.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report setting forth
the strategy described in subsection (a) and the steps to
implement such strategy.
SEC. 7. ADVANCE MARKET COMMITMENTS.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to improve
global health by creating a competitive market for future
vaccines through advance market commitments.
(b) Authority to Negotiate.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter
into negotiations with the appropriate officials of the World
Bank, the International Development Association, and the GAVI
Alliance, the member nations of such entities, and other
interested parties for the purpose of establishing advance
market commitments to purchase vaccines and microbicides to
combat neglected diseases.
(2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees a report on the status
of the negotiations to create advance market commitments
under this section. This report may be submitted as part of
the report submitted under section 6(b).
(c) Requirements.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall work
with the entities referred to in subsection (b) to ensure
that there is an international framework for the
establishment and implementation of advance market
commitments and that such commitments include--
(1) legally binding contracts for product purchase that
include a fair market price for a guaranteed number of
treatments to ensure that the market incentive is sufficient;
(2) clearly defined and transparent rules of competition
for qualified developers and suppliers of the product;
(3) clearly defined requirements for eligible vaccines to
ensure that they are safe and effective;
(4) dispute settlement mechanisms; and
(5) sufficient flexibility to enable the contracts to be
adjusted in accord with new information related to projected
market size and other factors while still maintaining the
purchase commitment at a fair price.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated
such sums as may be necessary for each of fiscal years 2009
through 2014 to fund an advance market commitment pilot
program for pneumococcal vaccines.
(2) Availability.--Amounts appropriated pursuant to this
subsection shall remain available until expended without
fiscal year limitation.
______
By Mr. WARNER (for himself and Mr. Webb):
S. 570. A bill to designate additional National Forest System lands
in the State of Virginia as wilderness or a wilderness study area, to
designate the Kimberling Creek Potential Wilderness Area for eventual
incorporation in the
[[Page S1914]]
Kimberling Creek Wilderness, to establish the Seng Mountain and Bear
Creek Scenic Areas, to provide for the development of trail plans for
the wilderness areas and scenic areas, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Virginia
Ridge and Valley Act of 2007. This bill seeks to add six new wilderness
areas, expand six existing wilderness areas, and create two new
national scenic areas in the Jefferson National Forest. Today,
Congressman Rick Boucher will join me by introducing companion
legislation in the United States House of Representatives.
Throughout my nearly three decades in the United States Senate, I
have strived to preserve Virginia's natural resources through the
designation of wilderness areas and, today, I am proud to say that
Virginia boasts just over 100,000 acres of designated wilderness lands.
However, there is still much work to be done. If enacted, the Virginia
Ridge and Valley Act of 2007 will substantially increase this figure by
expanding our opportunities for uninterrupted enjoyment in the forest
with the addition of nearly 43,000 acres of new wilderness and
wilderness study lands and almost 12,000 acres of national scenic
areas.
Virginia is blessed with great natural beauty and diversity. From the
coves and inlets of the Chesapeake Bay, to the exquisite peaks of the
Shenandoah Mountains, residents and visitors alike can enjoy a
bountiful array of natural treasures. As demand for development in
Virginia continues to increase, it is imperative that Congress act
expeditiously to protect these wild lands. Through wilderness and
national scenic area designations, we can ensure that these areas
retain their natural character and influences.
As an avid outdoorsman, I enjoy opportunities for recreation like
most Americans. Therefore, I want to stress the many joyful outdoor
activities that will be enhanced by the wilderness designation in these
areas, including: hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, canoeing, and
horseback riding, to name a few. By designating these lands as
wilderness and scenic areas, we ensure that Virginians will be able to
enjoy these activities in an unspoiled playground for generations to
come.
I am pleased that my colleague from Virginia, Senator Jim Webb, has
agreed to co-sponsor this important legislation, and I urge the rest of
my colleagues to join me in support of this bill. I thank you for this
opportunity to speak on behalf of the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act of
2007
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 572. A bill to ensure that Federal student loans are delivered as
efficiently as possible in order to provide more grant aid to students;
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, more than 40 years ago, Congress
recognized the importance of a college education in opening the door to
the American dream. We agreed then that no qualified student should be
denied the opportunity to go to college because of the cost. Guided by
that principle, we enacted the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Times have changed since then. College education has become even more
critical to success in the global economy. Yet, Congress has shamefully
lost sight of this fundamental principle, especially in recent years.
Today, 400,000 qualified students a year don't attend a four-year
college because they can't afford it. The cost of college has more than
tripled over the last twenty years, and vast numbers of families can't
keep up. Twenty years ago, the maximum Pell Grant--the lifeline to
college for low-income and first-generation students--covered more than
half the cost of attendance at a typical four-year public college.
Today, it only covers 32 percent.
Yet each year, the federal government wastes billions of taxpayer
dollars on subsidies to private lenders to do a job that could be done
much more efficiently without these middlemen.
At a time when students and families are pinching pennies more than
ever to pay for college, we can't let this situation continue. We
should use scarce tax dollars to help students, not banks.
The system we created 40 years ago involved federally-guaranteed
student loans made by private lenders, and it's now known as the
Federal Family Education Loan Program, or FFEL. At that time, Congress
wasn't sure lenders would be willing to loan money to students with no
credit history, so we created a system with guarantees against default.
Four decades later, student default rates are near an all-time low and
private lenders hold over $100 billion in federal student loan volume.
Federal guarantees and subsidies have made student loans the second
most profitable business for banks, after credit cards. The stock price
of the biggest lender, Sallie Mae, has skyrocketed from $3 to more than
$40 in the last decade.
In 1994, Congress finally recognized that we could give students a
better deal and save billions of dollars by cutting out the middleman.
We created the Direct Loan program, in which loans are issued directly
to students, from the United States Treasury. The loans are serviced
and collected under contracts with private companies, but there is no
middleman making the loans.
The Direct Loan program is much less expensive for taxpayers, because
it provides loan capital at a lower rate than banks, and avoids
billions of dollars in unnecessary subsidies to lenders.
If we had gone to a system of 100 percent Direct Loans in 1994, the
government would have saved over $30 billion since the program was
created. Unfortunately, because of the lobbying of the private lenders,
the FFEL program continues, and the Direct Loan program has never been
allowed to compete on a level playing field.
As a result, we continue to waste taxpayer money by paying an
unnecessary middleman, we shield lenders from risk, and we continue to
guarantee them a very profitable return.
It's time to encourage serious competition in the college loan
marketplace, and let students reap the benefits.
Today, Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), Congressmen George Miller (D-CA)
and Tom Petri (R-WI) and I are proposing a bipartisan plan to do that.
Our bill will increase student financial aid by squeezing billions of
dollars in corporate welfare out of the student loan program.
Our bill, The Student Aid Reward Act, will provide colleges and
universities with grant aid to increase scholarships for their
students. It is completely paid for by increased efficiency in
delivering student loans. The bill encourages colleges to use the
direct loans, which are cheaper for both the government and taxpayers,
and allows them to keep half the savings to increase need-based aid.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that our plan will generate
$13 billion in savings over the next 10 years from schools switching to
the more efficient program. The bill would provide at least $10 billion
for additional college scholarship aid at no additional cost to
taxpayers.
According to President Bush's 2008 education budget, student loans
made through the more expensive FFEL program in 2007 cost $3 more for
every $100 in loans than the same loans made directly from the
Treasury. Yet, colleges and students have no incentive under current
law to use the more efficient program.
Our Student Aid Reward Act encourages colleges to choose the less
expensive of the government's student loan programs.
It requires the Secretary of Education to determine every year which
loan program is more efficient. Schools are rewarded with additional
scholarship funds for using the more efficient of the two programs.
Competition will encourage both programs to improve the efficiency of
their operations. Schools, students, and taxpayers will all benefit.
Estimates based on the most recent Bush Administration budget
indicate that under our plan, each college will receive an incentive
payment equal to one and a half percent of the total amount borrowed by
students at the college.
In Massachusetts: students at Boston College will receive almost $1.4
million in additional financial aid. Students at UMASS Amherst will
receive $1.3 million more. Students at Springfield College will receive
over $700,000 more.
[[Page S1915]]
Students at Emerson College would receive nearly half a million dollars
more.
For students nationwide, college will be more affordable for millions
of young men and women at no additional taxpayer cost.
Title IV of the Higher Education Act today is called ``Student
Assistance''--not ``Lender Assistance.'' The federal student aid system
was created to help students and families afford college. But in recent
years, it has been corrupted into a system that lines the pockets of
the banks. It's time to throw the private money lenders out of the
temple of higher education. Scarce Federal education dollars should go
to deserving students, not greedy private lenders.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Student
Aid Reward Act of 2007 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. 572
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 ``Student Aid Reward Act of
2007''.
SEC. 2. STUDENT AID REWARD PROGRAM.
Part G of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1088 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section
489 the following:
``SEC. 489A. STUDENT AID REWARD PROGRAM.
``(a) Program Authorized.--The Secretary shall carry out a
Student Aid Reward Program to encourage institutions of
higher education to participate in the student loan program
under this title that is most cost-effective for taxpayers.
``(b) Program Requirements.--In carrying out the Student
Aid Reward Program, the Secretary shall--
``(1) provide to each institution of higher education
participating in the student loan program under this title
that is most cost-effective for taxpayers, a Student Aid
Reward Payment, in an amount determined in accordance with
subsection (c), to encourage the institution to participate
in that student loan program;
``(2) require each institution of higher education
receiving a payment under this section to provide student
loans under such student loan program for a period of 5 years
after the date the first payment is made under this section;
``(3) where appropriate, require that funds paid to
institutions of higher education under this section be used
to award students a supplement to such students' Federal Pell
Grants under subpart 1 of part A;
``(4) permit such funds to also be used to award need-based
grants to lower- and middle-income graduate students; and
``(5) encourage all institutions of higher education to
participate in the Student Aid Reward Program under this
section.
``(c) Amount.--The amount of a Student Aid Reward Payment
under this section shall be not less than 50 percent of the
savings to the Federal Government generated by the
institution of higher education's participation in the
student loan program under this title that is most cost-
effective for taxpayers instead of the institution's
participation in the student loan program that is not most
cost-effective for taxpayers.
``(d) Trigger to Ensure Cost Neutrality.--
``(1) Limit to ensure cost neutrality.--Notwithstanding
subsection (c), the Secretary shall not distribute Student
Aid Reward Payments under the Student Aid Reward Program
that, in the aggregate, exceed the Federal savings resulting
from the implementation of the Student Aid Reward Program.
``(2) Federal savings.--In calculating Federal savings, as
used in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall determine Federal
savings on loans made to students at institutions of higher
education that participate in the student loan program under
this title that is most cost-effective for taxpayers and
that, on the date of enactment of this section, participated
in the student loan program that is not most cost-effective
for taxpayers, resulting from the difference of--
``(A) the Federal cost of loan volume made under the
student loan program under this title that is most cost-
effective for taxpayers; and
``(B) the Federal cost of an equivalent type and amount of
loan volume made, insured, or guaranteed under the student
loan program under this title that is not most cost-effective
for taxpayers.
``(3) Distribution rules.--If the Federal savings
determined under paragraph (2) is not sufficient to
distribute full Student Aid Reward Payments under the Student
Aid Reward Program, the Secretary shall--
``(A) first make Student Aid Reward Payments to those
institutions of higher education that participated in the
student loan program under this title that is not most cost-
effective for taxpayers on the date of enactment of this
section; and
``(B) with any remaining Federal savings after making
Student Aid Reward Payments under subparagraph (A), make
Student Aid Reward Payments to the institutions of higher
education eligible for a Student Aid Reward Payment and not
described in subparagraph (A) on a pro-rata basis.
``(4) Distribution to students.--Any institution of higher
education that receives a Student Aid Reward Payment under
this section--
``(A) shall distribute, where appropriate, part or all of
such payment among the students of such institution who are
Federal Pell Grant recipients by awarding such students a
supplemental grant; and
``(B) may distribute part of such payment as a supplemental
grant to graduate students in financial need.
``(5) Estimates, adjustments, and carry over.--
``(A) Estimates and adjustments.--The Secretary shall make
Student Aid Reward Payments to institutions of higher
education on the basis of estimates, using the best data
available at the beginning of an academic or fiscal year. If
the Secretary determines thereafter that loan program costs
for that academic or fiscal year were different than such
estimate, the Secretary shall adjust by reducing or
increasing subsequent Student Aid Reward Payments paid to
such institutions of higher education to reflect such
difference.
``(B) Carry over.--Any institution of higher education that
receives a reduced Student Aid Reward Payment under paragraph
(3)(B), shall remain eligible for the unpaid portion of such
institution's financial reward payment, as well as any
additional financial reward payments for which the
institution is otherwise eligible, in subsequent academic or
fiscal years.
``(e) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) The term `student loan program under this title that
is most cost-effective for taxpayers' means the loan program
under part B or D of this title that has the lowest overall
cost to the Federal Government (including administrative
costs) for the loans authorized by such parts.
``(2) The term `student loan program under this title that
is not most cost-effective for taxpayers' means the loan
program under part B or D of this title that does not have
the lowest overall cost to the Federal Government (including
administrative costs) for the loans authorized by such
parts.''.
______
By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Ms. Murkowski, Ms. Collins, Ms.
Snowe, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Menendez):
S. 573. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
the Public health Service Act to improve the prevention, diagnosis, and
treatment of heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular diseases
in women; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, February is American Heart Month, and
heart disease remains the Nation's leading cause of death.
Many women believe that heart disease is a man's disease and,
unfortunately, do not review it as a serious health threat. However,
every year, since 1984, cardiovascular disease claims the lives of more
women than men. In fact, cardiovascular disease death rates have
declined significantly in men since 1979, while the death rate for
women hasn't experienced the same rate of decline. The numbers are
disturbing: cardiovascular diseases claim the lives of more than
460,000 women per year; that's nearly a death a minute among females
and nearly 12 times as many lives as claimed by breast cancer. One in
three females has some form of cardiovascular disease. And one in four
females dies from heart disease.
That is why I am pleased to join my colleague from Michigan, Senator
Stabenow, to introduce important legislation, the HEART for Women Act,
or Heart disease Education, Analysis and Research, and Treatment for
Women Act. This important bill improves the prevention, diagnosis and
treatment of heart disease and stroke in women.
In my State of Alaska--taken together--heart disease, stroke and
other cardiovascular diseases are also the leading cause of death,
totaling nearly 800 deaths each year. Women in Alaska have higher death
rates from stroke than do women nationally. Mortality among Native
Alaskan women is dramatically on the rise, whereas, it is actually
declining among Caucasian women in the Lower 48.
Despite being the number one killer, many women and their health care
providers do not know that the biggest health care threat to women is
heart disease. In fact, a recent survey found that 43 percent of women
still don't know that heart disease is the number one killer of women.
Perhaps even more troubling, is the lack of awareness among health
care providers. According to American
[[Page S1916]]
Heart Association figures, less than one in five physicians recognize
that more women suffer from heart disease than men. Among primary care
physicians, only 8 percent of primary care physicians--and even more
astounding--only 17 percent of cardiologists recognize that more women
die of heart disease than men. Additionally, studies show that women
are less likely to receive aggressive treatment because heart disease
often manifests itself differently in women than men.
This is why the HEART Act is so important. Our bill takes a three-
pronged approach to reducing the heart disease death rate for women,
through; 1. education; 2. research; and, 3. screening.
First, the bill would authorize the Department of Health and Human
Services to educate healthcare professionals and older women about
unique aspects of care in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of
women with heart disease and stroke.
Second, the bill would require disclosure of gender-specific health
information that is already being reported to the Federal Government.
Many agencies already collect information based on gender, but do not
disseminate or analyze the gender differences. This bill would release
that information so that it could be studied, and important health
trends in women could be detected.
Lastly, the bill would authorize the expansion of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention's WISEWOMAN program (the Well-Integrated
Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation program). The
WISEWOMAN program provides free heart disease and stroke screening to
low-income uninsured women, but the program is currently limited to
just 14 States.
My State of Alaska is fortunate to have two WISEWOMAN program sites.
These programs screen for high blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose
in Native Alaskan women and provide invaluable counseling on diet and
exercise. One program in Alaska alone has successfully screened 1,437
Alaskan Native women and has provided them with a culturally
appropriate intervention program that has produced live-saving results.
Mr. President, heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular
diseases cost Americans more than any other disease--an estimated $430
billion in 2007, including more than $280 billion in direct medical
costs. To put that number in perspective, that's about the same as the
projected Federal deficit for 2007. We, as a nation, can control those
costs--prevention through early detection is the most cost-effective
way to combat this disease.
Tomorrow, as we celebrate Valentine's Day and see images of hearts
just about everywhere, let us not forget that the heart is much more
than a symbol--it is a vital organ that can't be taken for granted.
Coronary disease can be effectively treated and sometimes even
prevented--it does not have to be the number one cause of death in
women. And, that is why I encourage my colleagues to support the HEART
for Women Act.
______
By Mr. REID:
S. 574. A bill to express the sense of Congress on Iraq; read the
first time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 574
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON IRAQ.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) Congress and the American people will continue to
support and protect the members of the United States Armed
Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and
honorably in Iraq; and
(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President
George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more
than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
SEC. 2. FREQUENCY OF REPORTS ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF POLICY AND
OPERATIONS.
The United States Policy in Iraq Act (section 1227 of
Public Law 109-163; 119 Stat. 3465; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Frequency of Reports on Certain Aspects of United
States Policy and Military Operations in Iraq.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
subsection, and every 30 days thereafter until all United
States combat brigades have redeployed from Iraq, the
President shall submit to Congress a report on the matters
set forth in paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), and (2) of subsection
(c). To the maximum extent practicable each report shall be
unclassified, with a classified annex if necessary.''.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr.
Kyl, and Mrs. Murray)
S. 575. A bill to authorize appropriations for border and
transportation security personnel and technology, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Dorgan to
introduce a bill of critical importance to the security of our borders:
the Border Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act.
It was two decades ago when an American border last underwent a
comprehensive infrastructure overhaul. That was when Senator Dennis
DeConcini of Arizona and I put forth a $357 million effort to modernize
the southwest border. A great deal has changed since 1986, and more
importantly, since September 11, 2001. Congress has acted to improve
security at airports and seaports, but we have not yet addressed our
busiest ports, located on our land borders. This is where our
infrastructure is its weakest, and we must act to prevent terrorists
from exploiting this weakness. It is critical that we give our northern
and southern borders the resources they need to address their
vulnerabilities.
In 2001, the General Services Administration completed a
comprehensive assessment of infrastructure needs on the southwestern
and northern borders of the United States. This assessment found that
overhauling both borders would cost $784 million.
Since the publication of that assessment, many of the needs
identified remain outstanding, and new needs have arisen as
facilitating commerce has become more complicated in the face of new
security concerns.
Congress must address these needs. We must give the Department of
Homeland Security the tools it needs to secure our borders. The Border
Infrastructure and Technology Modernization Act creates a number of
those tools.
The bill requires the General Service Administration (GSA) to
identify port of entry infrastructure and technology improvement
projects that would enhance homeland security. The GSA would work with
the Department of Homeland Security to prioritize and implement these
projects based on need.
The Secretary of Homeland Security would have to prepare a Land
Border Security Plan to assess the vulnerabilities at each port of
entry on the northern border and the southern border. This plan will
require the cooperation of Federal, State and local entities involved
at our borders to ensure that the individuals with first hand knowledge
of our border needs are consulted about the plan.
My bill would also modernize homeland security along the United
States' borders by implementing a program to test and evaluate new
technologies.
Because equipment and technology alone will not solve the security
problems on our border, these test sites will also house facilities so
personnel who must use these technologies can train under realistic
conditions.
I believe that these measures are an important part of addressing
this nation's homeland security needs, and I am pleased to introduce
the bill with Senator Dorgan.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 575
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 ``Border Infrastructure and
Technology Modernization Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Commissioner.--The term ``Commissioner'' means the
Commissioner responsible for United States Customs and Border
Protection of the Department of Homeland Security.
(2) Maquiladora.--The term ``maquiladora'' means an entity
located in
[[Page S1917]]
Mexico that assembles and produces goods from imported parts
for export to the United States.
(3) Northern border.--The term ``northern border'' means
the international border between the United States and
Canada.
(4) Southern border.--The term ``southern border'' means
the international border between the United States and
Mexico.
(5) Under secretary.--The term ``Under Secretary'' means
the Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security of
the Department of Homeland Security.
SEC. 3. HIRING AND TRAINING OF BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY PERSONNEL.
(a) Inspectors and Agents.--
(1) Increase in inspectors and agents.--During each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the Under Secretary shall--
(A) increase the number of full-time agents and associated
support staff in the Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement of the Department of Homeland Security by the
equivalent of at least 100 more than the number of such
employees in the Bureau as of the end of the preceding fiscal
year; and
(B) increase the number of full-time inspectors and
associated support staff in the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection by the equivalent of at least 200 more than the
number of such employees in the Bureau as of the end of the
preceding fiscal year.
(2) Waiver of fte limitation.--The Under Secretary is
authorized to waive any limitation on the number of full-time
equivalent personnel assigned to the Department of Homeland
Security to fulfill the requirements of paragraph (1).
(b) Training.--The Under Secretary shall provide
appropriate training for agents, inspectors, and associated
support staff of the Department of Homeland Security on an
ongoing basis to utilize new technologies and to ensure that
the proficiency levels of such personnel are acceptable to
protect the borders of the United States.
SEC. 4. PORT OF ENTRY INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT STUDY.
(a) Requirement To Update.--Not later than January 31 of
each year, the Administrator of General Services shall update
the Port of Entry Infrastructure Assessment Study prepared by
the United States Customs Service, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, and the General Services
Administration in accordance with the matter relating to the
ports of entry infrastructure assessment that is set out in
the joint explanatory statement in the conference report
accompanying H.R. 2490 of the 106th Congress, 1st session
(House of Representatives Rep. No. 106-319, on page 67) and
submit such updated study to Congress.
(b) Consultation.--In preparing the updated studies
required in subsection (a), the Administrator of General
Services shall consult with the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, the Under Secretary, and the
Commissioner.
(c) Content.--Each updated study required in subsection (a)
shall--
(1) identify port of entry infrastructure and technology
improvement projects that would enhance border security and
facilitate the flow of legitimate commerce if implemented;
(2) include the projects identified in the National Land
Border Security Plan required by section 5; and
(3) prioritize the projects described in paragraphs (1) and
(2) based on the ability of a project to--
(A) fulfill immediate security requirements; and
(B) facilitate trade across the borders of the United
States.
(d) Project Implementation.--The Commissioner shall
implement the infrastructure and technology improvement
projects described in subsection (c) in the order of priority
assigned to each project under paragraph (3) of such
subsection.
(e) Divergence From Priorities.--The Commissioner may
diverge from the priority order if the Commissioner
determines that significantly changed circumstances, such as
immediate security needs or changes in infrastructure in
Mexico or Canada, compellingly alter the need for a project
in the United States.
SEC. 5. NATIONAL LAND BORDER SECURITY PLAN.
(a) Requirement for Plan.--Not later than January 31 of
each year, the Under Secretary shall prepare a National Land
Border Security Plan and submit such plan to Congress.
(b) Consultation.--In preparing the plan required in
subsection (a), the Under Secretary shall consult with the
Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection and the Federal, State, and local law enforcement
agencies and private entities that are involved in
international trade across the northern border or the
southern border.
(c) Vulnerability Assessment.--
(1) In general.--The plan required in subsection (a) shall
include a vulnerability assessment of each port of entry
located on the northern border or the southern border.
(2) Port security coordinators.--The Under Secretary may
establish 1 or more port security coordinators at each port
of entry located on the northern border or the southern
border--
(A) to assist in conducting a vulnerability assessment at
such port; and
(B) to provide other assistance with the preparation of the
plan required in subsection (a).
SEC. 6. EXPANSION OF COMMERCE SECURITY PROGRAMS.
(a) Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Commissioner, in consultation
with the Under Secretary, shall develop a plan to expand the
size and scope (including personnel needs) of the Customs-
Trade Partnership Against Terrorism programs along the
northern border and southern border, including--
(A) the Business Anti-Smuggling Coalition;
(B) the Carrier Initiative Program;
(C) the Americas Counter Smuggling Initiative;
(D) the Container Security Initiative;
(E) the Free and Secure Trade Initiative; and
(F) other Industry Partnership Programs administered by the
Commissioner.
(2) Southern border demonstration program.--Not later than
180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Commissioner shall establish a demonstration program along
the southern border for the purpose of implementing at least
one Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program along
that border. The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism
program selected for the demonstration program shall have
been successfully implemented along the northern border as of
the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Maquiladora Demonstration Program.--Not later than 180
days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Commissioner shall establish a demonstration program to
develop a cooperative trade security system to improve supply
chain security.
SEC. 7. PORT OF ENTRY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Establishment.--The Under Secretary shall carry out a
technology demonstration program to test and evaluate new
port of entry technologies, refine port of entry technologies
and operational concepts, and train personnel under realistic
conditions.
(b) Technology and Facilities.--
(1) Technology tested.--Under the demonstration program,
the Under Secretary shall test technologies that enhance port
of entry operations, including those related to inspections,
communications, port tracking, identification of persons and
cargo, sensory devices, personal detection, decision support,
and the detection and identification of weapons of mass
destruction.
(2) Facilities developed.--At a demonstration site selected
pursuant to subsection (c)(2), the Under Secretary shall
develop facilities to provide appropriate training to law
enforcement personnel who have responsibility for border
security, including cross-training among agencies, advanced
law enforcement training, and equipment orientation.
(c) Demonstration Sites.--
(1) Number.--The Under Secretary shall carry out the
demonstration program at not less than 3 sites and not more
than 5 sites.
(2) Selection criteria.--To ensure that at least 1 of the
facilities selected as a port of entry demonstration site for
the demonstration program has the most up-to-date design,
contains sufficient space to conduct the demonstration
program, has a traffic volume low enough to easily
incorporate new technologies without interrupting normal
processing activity, and can efficiently carry out
demonstration and port of entry operations, at least 1 port
of entry selected as a demonstration site shall--
(A) have been established not more than 15 years before the
date of the enactment of this Act;
(B) consist of not less than 65 acres, with the possibility
of expansion onto not less than 25 adjacent acres; and
(C) have serviced an average of not more than 50,000
vehicles per month in the 12 full months preceding the date
of the enactment of this Act.
(d) Relationship With Other Agencies.--The Under Secretary
shall permit personnel from an appropriate Federal or State
agency to utilize a demonstration site described in
subsection (c) to test technologies that enhance port of
entry operations, including those related to inspections,
communications, port tracking, identification of persons and
cargo, sensory devices, personal detection, decision support,
and the detection and identification of weapons of mass
destruction.
(e) Report.--
(1) Requirement.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Under
Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the activities
carried out at each demonstration site under the technology
demonstration program established under this section.
(2) Content.--The report shall include an assessment by the
Under Secretary of the feasibility of incorporating any
demonstrated technology for use throughout the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) In General.--In addition to any funds otherwise
available, there are authorized to be appropriated--
(1) to carry out the provisions of section 3, such sums as
may be necessary for the fiscal years 2008 through 2012;
(2) to carry out the provisions of section 4--
(A) to carry out subsection (a) of such section, such sums
as may be necessary for the fiscal years 2008 through 2012;
and
(B) to carry out subsection (d) of such section--
[[Page S1918]]
(i) $100,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through
2012; and
(ii) such sums as may be necessary in any succeeding fiscal
year;
(3) to carry out the provisions of section 6--
(A) to carry out subsection (a) of such section--
(i) $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, of which $5,000,000
shall be made available to fund the demonstration project
established in paragraph (2) of such subsection; and
(ii) such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal years
2009 through 2012; and
(B) to carry out subsection (b) of such section--
(i) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(ii) such sums as may be necessary for the fiscal years
2009 through 2012; and
(4) to carry out the provisions of section 7, provided that
not more than $10,000,000 may be expended for technology
demonstration program activities at any 1 port of entry
demonstration site in any fiscal year--
(A) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008; and
(B) such sums as may be necessary for each of the fiscal
years 2009 through 2012.
(b) International Agreements.--Funds authorized in this Act
may be used for the implementation of projects described in
the Declaration on Embracing Technology and Cooperation to
Promote the Secure and Efficient Flow of People and Commerce
across our Shared Border between the United States and
Mexico, agreed to March 22, 2002, Monterrey, Mexico (commonly
known as the Border Partnership Action Plan) or the Smart
Border Declaration between the United States and Canada,
agreed to December 12, 2001, Ottawa, Canada that are
consistent with the provisions of this Act.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr.
Menendez):
S. 576. A bill to provide for the effective prosecution of terrorists
and guarantee due process rights; to the Committee on Armed Services.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Restoring the
Constitution Act of 2007--a bill to provide for the effective
prosecution of terrorists and guarantee due process rights. I am
pleased to be joined by Senators Leahy, Feingold, and Menendez as
original cosponsors. This bill would make significant important changes
to the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which became law last October.
I have served in this body for more than a quarter-century, but I
remember few days darker than September 28, 2006, the day the Senate
passed President Bush's Military Commissions Act. Let me be honest with
you, I believe this body gave in to fear that day. I believe we looked
for refuge in the rule of men, when we should have trusted in the rule
of law.
Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007 is more than mere tinkering
with provisions of the Military Commissions Act. This legislation,
which is similar to the bill that I introduced in the last Congress,
makes major and important changes to that law in order to ensure we
have the essential legal tools to achieve a lasting American victory
without violating American values.
What does this proposed legislation do?
It restores the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held in U.S.
custody.
It narrows the definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals
who directly participate in hostilities against the United States in a
zone of active combat, who are not lawful combatants.
It requires that the United States live up to its Geneva Convention
obligations by deleting a prohibition in the law that bars detainees
from invoking Geneva Conventions as a source of rights at trial.
It permits the accused to retain qualified civilian attorneys to
represent them at trial.
It prevents the use of evidence in court gained through the
unreliable and immoral practices of torture and coercion.
It charges the military judge with the responsibility for ensuring
that the jury is appropriately informed as to the sources, methods and
activities associated with developing out of court statements proposed
to be introduced at trial, or alternatively that the statement is not
introduced.
It empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to
be unreliable.
It authorizes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to
review decisions by the military commissions.
It limits the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and
application of the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject
to congressional and judicial oversight.
It clarifies the definition of war crimes in statute to include
certain violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Finally, it provides for expedited judicial review of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006 to determine the constitutionally of its
provisions.
To be clear--I absolutely believe that under very clearly proscribed
circumstances military commissions can be a useful instrument for
bringing our enemies to justice. But those who ask us to choose between
national security and moral authority are offering us a false choice,
and a dangerous one. Our Nation has been defeating tyrants and would-be
tyrants for more than two centuries. And in all that struggle, we've
never sold our principles--because if We did, we would be walking in
the footsteps of those we most despise.
In times of peril, throwing away due process has been a constant
temptation--but that is why we honor so highly those who resisted it.
At Nuremberg, America rejected the certainty of execution for the
uncertainty of a trial, and gave birth to a half-century of moral
authority. Today I am asking my colleagues to reclaim that tradition,
to put the principles of the Constitution above the passion of the
moment. That reclamation can begin today--if we remedy President Bush's
repugnant law. We can do it--and keep America Secure at the same time.
Freedom from torture. The right to counsel. Habeas corpus. To be
honest, it still amazes me that we have to come to the floor of the
Senate to debate these protections at all. What would James Madison
have said if you told him that someday in the future, a Senator from
Connecticut would be forced to publicly defend habeas corpus, the
defendant's right to a day in court, the foundation of Our legal system
dating back to the 13 century? What have we come to that such long-
settled, long-honored rights have been called into question?
But here we are. And now it is upon us to renew them. I'd like to
talk in detail about several key components of my legislation. The
Military Commissions Act eliminated habeas corpus. Habeas corpus allows
a person held by the government to question the legality of his
detention. In my view, to deny this right not only undermines the rule
of law, but damages the very fabric of America. It is not who we are,
and it is not who we aspire to be. My bill reopens the doors to the
Court house by restoring the writ of habeas corpus for individuals held
in U.S. custody.
By approving the Military Commissions Act, Congress abdicated its
constitutionally-mandated authority and responsibility to safeguard
this principle and serve as a co-equal check on the executive branch.
This law confers an unprecedented level of power on the president,
allowing him the sole right to designate any individual as an
``unlawful enemy combatant'' if he or she engaged in hostilities or
supported hostilities against the United States. In my view and in the
view of many legal experts, this definition of ``unlawful enemy
combatant'' is unmanageably vague. As we have all seen, ``unlawful
enemy combatants'' are subject to arrest and indefinite detention, in
many cases without ever being changed with a crime, let alone being
found guilty. My bill would curtail potential abuse of the unlawful
enemy combatant designation by narrowing the definition of unlawful
enemy combatant to individuals who directly participate in hostilities
against the United States in ``a zone of active combat'', and who are
not lawful combatants. This correction is desperately needed to restore
America's standing in the world and to right injustices that have
recently been documented by international human rights organizations.
According to the Pentagon, last October, only 70 out of the 435
detainees housed at U.S. prison camps were expected to face a military
trial, leaving hundreds of others to be held indefinitely. And while
the Pentagon acknowledges that at least 110 of these detainees were
labeled ``ready to release,'' for some reason they have been kept under
lock and key. Then there are stories such as the one about Asif Iqbal,
a British humanitarian aid volunteer who, according to a January 10,
2007 Associated Press story, was mistakenly captured in Afghanistan and
subjected to isolation, painful positioning, screeching music, strobe
[[Page S1919]]
lights, sleep deprivation, and extreme temperatures. After three
months, of enduring such treatment, Iqbal was released in 2004 without
any charges brought against him.
Such sordid episodes have gravely undermined our apparent commitment
to the Geneva Conventions and damaged our status both at home and in
the global community. By failing to reaffirm our obligations under
these vital treaties, the Military Commissions Act has only
further eroded America's moral authority and perhaps ceded our nation's
status as the leading proponent of international law and human rights.
For this reason, the legislation I am offering today will reaffirm our
obligations under the Geneva Conventions in several key ways. First, it
would allow detainees to invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of
rights in their trials, overturning a ban put in place by the Military
Commissions Act. Second, this legislation will limit the authority of
the President to interpret and redefine the meaning and application of
the Geneva Conventions by subjecting this authority to Congressional
and judicial oversight. Lastly, my bill would statutorily define
certain violations of the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. These
provisions are all vitally important in allowing the United States to
effectively wage the war on terror. The war that we are currently
waging requires increasing international cooperation, but the
President's plan puts us on a path of increasing isolation from even
our staunchest allies.
Furthermore, this path is undermining our government's commitments to
fundamental tenets of the American legal system. One of these tenets
entails the right of the accused not only to confront his/her accuser
but also to retain an attorney to represent him/her at trial. This is a
basic right afforded to even the most egregious criminals under
domestic law. And yet, under the administration's plan, this measure is
being abandoned. In response, my bill sets standards for legal
representation and allows for civilian legal counsel in military
commission proceedings.
Even more importantly, my bill improves on these proceedings by
prohibiting the use in court of any evidence that was gained through
the unreliable and immoral practices of coercion. Incredibly, the
Military Commissions Act lacks this blanket ban on evidence gained
through torture. This is critically important for two very different
reasons. Torture has been proven to be ineffective in interrogations,
yielding highly unreliable information because a detainee, hoping to
end the pain, will simply say whatever he believes an interrogator
wants to hear. Second, torture allows foreign militaries to mistreat
future American prisoners of war and use U.S. actions as an excuse. No
one has said it with more authority than our colleague, Senator John
McCain.
As he stated last year, ``the intelligence we collect must be
reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all
our fighting men and women . . . the cruel actions of a few to darken
the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions,''
To address these concerns, my bill restores to military judges the
responsibility of ensuring that information introduced at trial has not
been obtained through methods defined as cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment by the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Sadly, the Military
Commissions Act shows disrespect for and mistrust of the highly trained
professionals on our military's bench by stripping them of autonomy and
authority. The legislation I am proposing today empowers military
judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. In
addition, this bill will grant military judges discretion in the event
that classified evidence has a bearing on the innocence of an
individual but is excluded due to national security concerns and
declassified alternatives are insufficient. America's military judges
have been fully trained and prepared to handle classified information.
The Bush administration's failure to recognize this fact is an insult
to the men and women of our military's bench and an affront to our
military's justice system.
Unlike the current administration, I trust our courts to be able to
handle the delicate legal and national security issues inherent in the
cases involving so-called unlawful enemy combatants. This legislation
therefore provides for appeals of the military commissions' decisions
to be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. In my
view, the right to an appeal is one of the most fundamental rights
granted to anyone in our justice system. We 3 grant appeals to people
accused of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. We do this
because we know that courts are not infallible. They can err in their
decisions, and in order for these mistakes to be rectified and to avoid
punishing innocent men and women, appeals must be allowed.
All of these provisions are important. But perhaps none is more
urgent than the final measure in my bill, which requires expedited
judicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determine
the constitutionally of its provisions. I believe that the United
States Congress made a crucial mistake--that is why we must ensure that
each provision of the Administration's Military Commissions Act is
quickly reviewed by our Nation's courts. I believe that upon such
review, those best qualified to make these judgments--members of our
esteemed judiciary--will see to it that the most egregious provisions
of this act will be overturned.
All 100 members of this body have been given the gravest of
responsibilities. The people of this country have entrusted us with
this Nation's security; and they have entrusted us with this Nation's
principles. But those who argue that our principles stand in the way of
our security are sadly, sorely mistaken: They are the source of our
strength.
Five months ago, we departed from that source. But it is not too late
to turn back. It is not too late to redeem our error. I implore my
colleagues to join me.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Restoring
the Constitution Act of 2007, which was introduced today by Senator
Dodd. It amends the deeply flawed Military Commissions Act of 2006 to
restore basic due process rights and to ensure that no person is
subject to indefinite detention without charge based on the sole
discretion of the President.
Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice.
This administration has for too long been distracted by the war in Iraq
from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the
terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country.
Last year, the President agreed to consult with Congress on the
makeup of military commissions only because he was essentially ordered
to do so by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan decision. Congress should
have taken that opportunity to pass legislation that would allow these
trials to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is
what separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted
appropriately, would have had the potential to demonstrate to the world
that our democratic, constitutional system of government is not a
hindrance but a source of strength in fighting those who attacked us.
Instead, we passed the Military Commissions Act, legislation that
violates the basic principles and values of our constitutional system
of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on
American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity for them
to challenge their detention in court. And the new law would permit an
individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even
allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death.
The checks and balances of our system of government and the
fundamental fairness of the American people and legal system are among
our greatest strengths in the fight against terrorism. I was deeply
disappointed that Congress enacted the Military Commissions Act. The
day that bill became law was a stain on our Nation's history.
It is time to undo the harm caused by that legislation.
The Restoring the Constitution Act amends the Military Commissions
Act to remedy its most serious flaws, and I am pleased to support it.
First of all, this legislation would restore the great writ of habeas
corpus, to ensure that detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere--
people who have been held for years but have not
[[Page S1920]]
been tried or even charged with any crime--have the ability to
challenge their detention in court. Senator Dodd's bill would repeal
the habeas stripping provisions of both the Military Commissions Act
and the Detainee Treatment Act.
Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the
government does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and
arbitrarily. And that in America, the courts must have the power to
review the legality of executive detention decisions.
Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition,
and is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress last year, habeas
corpus ``safeguards the most hallowed judicial role in our
constitutional democracy--ensuring that no man is imprisoned
unlawfully.''
The Military Commissions Act fundamentally altered that historical
equation. Faced with an executive branch that has detained hundreds of
people without trial for years now, it eliminated the right of habeas
corpus.
Under the Military Commissions Act, some individuals, at the
designation of the executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in
the United States, and held indefinitely without trial, without due
process, without any access whatsoever to the courts. They would not be
able to call upon the laws of our great nation to challenge their
detention because they would have been put outside the reach of the
law.
That is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution.
But that determination will take years of protracted litigation. Under
the Dodd bill, we would not have to wait. We would restore the right to
habeas corpus now. We can provide a lawful system of military
commissions so that those who have committed war crimes can be brought
to justice, without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed by
the Constitution to those held in custody by our government.
Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this
country should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court.
But that argument is circular--the writ of habeas allows those who
might be mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court,
before a neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to
be detained indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in
fact, enemy combatants. Unless it can be said with absolute certainty
that every person detained as an enemy combatant was correctly
detained--and there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case--
then we should make sure that people can't simply be locked up forever,
without court review, based on someone slapping a ``terrorist'' label
on them.
We must return to the great writ. We must be true to our Nation's
proud traditions and principles by restoring the writ of habeas corpus,
by making clear that we do not permit our government to pick people up
off the street, even in U.S. cities, and detain them indefinitely
without court review. That is not what America is about.
But the Restoring the Constitution Act does far more than restore
habeas corpus. It also addresses who can be subject to trial by
military commission.
The Military Commissions Act was justified as necessary to allow our
government to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other dangerous men
transferred to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. Yet if you look at the fine
print of that legislation, it becomes clear that it is much, much
broader than that. It would permit trial by military commission not
just for those accused of planning the September 11 attacks, but also
individuals, including legal permanent residents of this country, who
are alleged to have ``purposefully and materially supported
hostilities'' against the United States or its allies.
This is extremely broad. And by including hostilities not only
against the United States but also against its allies, the Military
Commissions Act allows the U.S. to hold and try by military commission
individuals who have never engaged, directly or indirectly, in any
action against the United States.
Not only that, but the Military Commissions Act would also define as
an unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission,
anyone who ``has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a
Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal
established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of
Defense.'' This essentially grants a blank check to the executive
branch to decide entirely on its own who can be tried by military
commission.
Senator Dodd's bill makes clear that the President cannot
unilaterally decide who is eligible for trial by military commission.
Under the Dodd bill, in order to be tried by military commission, an
individual must have directly participated in hostilities against the
United States in a zone of active combat, or have been involved in the
September 11 attacks, and cannot be a lawful enemy combatant.
Senator Dodd's bill also addresses the structure and process of the
military commissions themselves. It ensures that these military
commission procedures hew closely to the long-established military
system of justice, as recommended by countless witnesses at
congressional hearings last summer.
Some examples of the ways in which the Dodd bill improves the
military commission procedures include: It prevents the use of evidence
in court gained through torture or coercion. It ensures that any
evidence seized within the United States without a search warrant
cannot be introduced as evidence. It empowers military judges to
exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable. It authorizes the
existing U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions
by military commissions, rather than the newly created ``Court of
Military Commission Review,'' whose members would be appointed by the
Secretary of Defense. And it provides for expedited judicial review of
the Military Commissions Act to determine the constitutionally of its
provisions before anyone is tried by military commission, so that we
will not face even more delays in the future.
Many of these provisions were included in the bill passed by the
Senate Armed Services Committee in September 2006, but then stripped
out or altered in backroom negotiations with the Administration. The
bill also improves changes to the War Crimes Act and emphasizes the
importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions.
In sum, Senator Dodd's legislation addresses many of the most
troubling and legally suspect provisions of the Military Commissions
Act. Congress would be wise to make these changes now, rather than wait
around while the Military Commissions Act is subject to further legal
challenge, and another 4 or 5 years are squandered while cases work
their way through the courts again.
In closing let me quote John Ashcroft. According to the New York
Times, at a private meeting of high-level officials in 2003 about the
military commission structure, then-Attorney General Ashcroft said:
``Timothy McVeigh was one of the worst killers in U.S. history. But at
least we had fair procedures for him.'' How sad that Congress passed
legislation about which the same cannot be said. We can and must undo
this mistake.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Levin, Ms.
Cantwell, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 577. A bill to amend the Commodity Exchange Act to add a provision
relating to reporting and recordkeeping for positions involving energy
commodities; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Snowe,
Levin, Cantwell, Boxer, Feingold, Bingaman, Lieberman, Lautenberg, and
Mikulski to introduce a bill to provide necessary Federal oversight of
our energy markets.
Just as is currently required for trades performed on the New York
Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), this bill would require record keeping and
create an audit trail for all electronic over-the-counter energy
trades.
Generally, in energy markets, the term ``over-the-counter trading''
refers to the trading of an energy commodity directly between two
parties that does not take place on a regulated exchange.
[[Page S1921]]
Six years after the California energy crisis, this bill is long
overdue. As global oil and gas prices increase and as we work to reduce
global greenhouse gas emissions, the American public needs reliable,
transparent energy markets that are not subject to manipulation by
traders.
Specifically, the bill would: require traders who perform trades on
electronic trading facilities such as the Intercontinental Exchange
(ICE) to keep records and report large positions carried by their
market participants in energy commodities for five years or longer.
These are the same requirements that apply to traders that do business
on NYMEX; require traders to provide such records to the Commodity
Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) or the Justice Department upon
request. Again, these are the same requirements for NYMEX traders; and
require persons in the United States who trade U.S. energy commodities
delivered in the U.S. on foreign futures exchanges to keep similar
records and report large trades.
The Western Energy Crisis in 2000-2001 provided a wake-up call about
the extent to which energy traders can impact demand and drive up
prices.
California and the entire West Coast faced rolling blackouts and
skyrocketing electricity costs, while companies like Enron, Duke,
Williams, AES and Reliant enjoyed record revenues and profits.
In California, the cost of electricity was $8 billion in 1999, $27
billion in 2000, $27.5 billion in 2001, and $12 billion in 2002 after
the crisis abated. Demand did not increase by more than 150 percent
between 1999 and 2000. But prices did.
Why? Because companies like Enron manipulated the market in order to
drive the price of electricity up.
As a result, Californians have been left with a $40 billion bill.
This is an unacceptable burden.
One of the main causes of the crisis is a loophole in current law
that allows for energy commodities--such as natural gas, electricity,
oil, and gasoline--to be traded on over-the-counter markets with no
Federal oversight.
While over-the-counter trades of all other commodities--pork bellies,
soybeans, wheat and rice, for example--are regulated by the Federal
Government, energy trades are not.
Our country currently faces natural gas prices that have been
extremely volatile, and oil prices that have gone through the roof.
With gas prices reaching well above $2 per gallon across the country,
and over $2.50 in my State of California, our constituents deserve to
know why those prices are so high.
The New York Times has reported that manipulation of electronic
energy trades has pushed these prices higher and higher.
Testifying at the Enron trial, the former Chief Executive Officer of
Enron North America and Enron Energy Services, David Delainey was
asked: ``Is volatility a good thing for a speculative trader?''
His response: ``Yes.''
When asked to explain his answer, he said: The higher the volatility
that you have, the better--the higher the potential profit you can make
from an open position you might have in the marketplace . . . if the
price change is only a couple cents either way, you can't make a whole
lot of money in trading.
And if you have, you know, 50, 60 cents, dollar moves in price you're
going to make a lot more money for--for every position you might have .
. .
Unfortunately, Enron's demise did not sound the death knell for
unregulated over-the-counter energy trades. Instead, these trades now
take place on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE).
Over-the-counter trades performed on ICE are exempt from Federal
oversight. In other words, the CFTC cannot require traders on ICE to
keep records or report trades in energy commodities. As a result, the
CFTC does not have a complete picture of what occurs in the energy
markets.
The CFTC has recently asked ICE to provide information for certain
electronically traded energy contracts. ICE has agreed to comply. I
welcome these positive developments, but nonetheless believe that this
legislation is necessary to remove any doubt as to the CFTC's authority
to mandate these reports and to ensure these requirements are not
administratively removed at some later date.
In this request, the CFTC has only asked ICE to report those trades
that are performed using NYMEX-established prices. NYMEX does not
establish prices for electricity, so none of the electricity trades
will be reported. This means that under current circumstances, the CFTC
still will not be getting a full picture of the energy market from
ICE's reports.
Our bill will require reporting of all electronic over-the-counter
energy trades and will provide legislative certainty that these trades
will be reported.
We learned the hard way that if there is no oversight of these
markets, they are subject to manipulation.
It is high time to fix this problem. Our bill will do just this.
That is why I urge my colleagues to support this bill. The
legislation will simply provide the CFTC with the data it needs to
ensure that manipulation and fraud are not taking place on our energy
markets.
So who would be against this proposal?
The traders who are making millions of dollars off of volatility in
these markets. And some of these traders are people who learned their
skills at Enron--like star-Enron trader John Arnold who made $75 to
$100 million in 2005 at Centaurus Energy, a hedge fund investing in
energy commodities.
The other beneficiaries of high oil and natural gas prices are the
energy companies themselves. Oil major Chevron made almost $13.4
billion in the first 9 months of 2006--a 34 percent rise in profits
over the same 9 months in 2005.
The number 3 U.S. oil company, ConocoPhillips, reported a 25 percent
surge in profits in the first 9 months of 2006, boosted by sharply
higher crude oil prices. Net income in the first 9 months of 2006 rose
to $12.35 billion from $9.85 billion in the same time period of 2005.
And ExxonMobil made more money in 2006 than any company in history.
All of these record profits are due to the fact that oil prices are so
high.
So while consumers are paying more than $2 a gallon at the pump,
traders and oil companies are making out like bandits.
I hope that we have enough consensus this year to pass this
legislation in order to shine some light on our energy markets and
determine if speculation, manipulation, or hoarding is occurring in the
oil, gas, and electricity markets.
I would like to thank the following organizations for their support
of this bill: Agricultural Retailers Association, Air Transport
Association of America, American Public Gas Association, American
Public Power Association, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers
Union, Industrial Energy Consumers of America, National Association of
Wheat Growers, National Barley Growers Association, New England Fuel
Initiative, Pacific Northwest Oil Heat Council, Petroleum
Transportation and Storage Association, Petroleum Marketers Association
of America, PG&E Corporation, Sempra, and Southern California Edison.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and I
ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 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. 577
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 ``Oil and Gas Traders
Oversight Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING FOR POSITIONS INVOLVING
ENERGY COMMODITIES.
(a) In General.--Section 2(h) of the Commodity Exchange Act
(7 U.S.C. 2(h)) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(7) Reporting and recordkeeping for positions involving
energy commodities.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Domestic terminal.--The term `domestic terminal'
means a technology, software, or other means of providing
electronic access within the United States to a contract,
agreement, or transaction traded on a foreign board of trade.
``(ii) Energy commodity.--The term `energy commodity' means
a commodity or the derivatives of a commodity that is used
primarily as a source of energy, including--
``(I) coal;
``(II) crude oil;
[[Page S1922]]
``(III) gasoline;
``(IV) heating oil;
``(V) diesel fuel;
``(VI) electricity;
``(VII) propane; and
``(VIII) natural gas.
``(iii) Reportable contract.--The term `reportable
contract' means--
``(I) a contract, agreement, or transaction involving an
energy commodity, executed on an electronic trading facility,
or
``(II) a contract, agreement, or transaction for future
delivery involving an energy commodity for which the
underlying energy commodity has a physical delivery point
within the United States and that is executed through a
domestic terminal.
``(B) Record keeping.--The Commission, by rule, shall
require any person holding, maintaining, or controlling any
position in any reportable contract under this section--
``(i) to maintain such records as directed by the
Commission for a period of 5 years, or longer, if directed by
the Commission; and
``(ii) to provide such records upon request to the
Commission or the Department of Justice.
``(C) Reporting of positions involving energy
commodities.--The Commission shall prescribe rules requiring
such regular or continuous reporting of positions in a
reportable contract in accordance with such requirements
regarding size limits for reportable positions and the form,
timing, and manner of filing such reports under this
paragraph, as the Commission shall determine.
``(D) Other rules not affected.--
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), this
paragraph does not prohibit or impair the adoption by any
board of trade licensed, designated, or registered by the
Commission of any bylaw, rule, regulation, or resolution
requiring reports of positions in any agreement, contract, or
transaction made in connection with a contract of sale for
future delivery of an energy commodity (including such a
contract of sale), including any bylaw, rule, regulation, or
resolution pertaining to filing or recordkeeping, which may
be held by any person subject to the rules of the board of
trade.
``(ii) Exception.--Any bylaw, rule, regulation, or
resolution established by a board of trade described in
clause (i) shall not be inconsistent with any requirement
prescribed by the Commission under this paragraph.
``(E) Contract, agreement, or transaction for future
delivery.--Notwithstanding sections 4(b) and 4a, the
Commission shall subject a contract, agreement, or
transaction for future delivery in an energy commodity to the
requirements established by this paragraph.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 4a(e) of the Commodity
Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 6a(e)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) by inserting ``or by an electronic trading facility
operating in reliance on section 2(h)(3)'' after ``registered
by the Commission''; and
(B) by inserting ``electronic trading facility,'' before
``or such board of trade''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``or by an
electronic trading facility operating in reliance on section
2(h)(3)'' after ``registered by the Commission''.
______
By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Reed, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Harkin, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Dodd, Mr.
Durbin, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Schumer, Mr.
Levin, Mr. Akaka, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Menendez):
S. 578. A bill to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to
improve requirements under the Medicaid program for items and services
furnished in or through an educational program or setting to children,
including children with developmental, physical, or mental health
needs, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join my Senate and
House colleagues in introducing the ``Protecting Children's Health in
Schools Act of 2006.'' This bill will ensure that the Nation's 7
million school children with disabilities will have continued access to
health care in school.
In 1975, the Nation made a commitment to guarantee children with
disabilities equal access to education. For these children to learn and
thrive in schools, the integration of education with health care is of
paramount importance. Coordination with Medicaid makes an immense
difference to schools in meeting the needs of these children.
This year, however, the Bush Administration has declared its intent
to end Medicaid reimbursements to schools for the support services they
need in order to provide medical and health-related services to
disabled children. The Administration is saying ``NO'' to any further
financial help to Medicaid-covered disabled children who need
specialized transportation to obtain their health services at school.
It is saying ``NO'' to any legitimate reimbursement to the school for
costs incurred for administrative duties related to Medicaid services.
It's bad enough that Congress and the Administration have not kept
the commitment to ``glide-path'' funding of IDEA needs in 2004. Now the
Administration proposes to deny funding to schools under the Federal
program that supports the health needs of disabled children. It makes
no sense to make it so difficult for disabled children to achieve in
school--both under IDEA and the No Child Left Behind.
At stake is an estimated $3.6 billion in Medicaid funds over the next
five years. Such funding is essential to help identify disabled
children and connect them to services that can meet their special
health and learning needs during the school day.
This decision by the Administration follows years of resisting
Medicaid reimbursements to schools that provide these services, without
clear guidance on how schools should appropriately seek reimbursement.
The ``Protecting Children's Health in Schools Act'' recognizes the
importance of schools as a site of delivery of health care. It ensures
that children with disabilities can continue to obtain health services
during the school day. The bill also provides for clear and consistent
guidelines to be established, so that schools can be held accountable
and seek appropriate reimbursement.
The legislation has the support of over 60 groups, including parents,
teachers, principals, school boards, and health care providers--people
who work with children with disabilities every day and know what is
needed to facilitate their growth, development, and long-term success.
I urge all of our colleagues to join us in supporting these children
across the Nation, by providing the realistic support their schools
need in order to meet these basic health care requirements of their
students.
____________________