[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.

                          ____________________