[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 14, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1960-S1980]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page S1960]]
          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Murkowski, 
        Mr. Sanders, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Warner, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Biden, 
        Mr. Menendez, Mr. Reed, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Lautenberg):
  S. 579. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to authorize 
the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 
to make grants for the development and operation of research centers 
regarding environmental factors that may be related to the etiology of 
breast cancer; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senators Hatch, 
Clinton, Murkowski, Sanders, and Snowe in introducing the Breast Cancer 
and Environmental Research Act of 2007. On behalf of the millions of 
Americans who are affected by breast cancer, I urge all my Senate 
colleagues to support this important bill.
  Many of us are familiar with breast cancer's serious toll on the 
Nation. Approximately 3 million women are living with the disease 
today, including an estimated 1 million who have not yet been 
diagnosed. Moreover, anyone's mother, daughter, wife, sister, or friend 
is at risk. It is thought that breast cancer will strike one in eight 
American women in her lifetime, with a new case diagnosed every 2 
minutes. That means almost 275,000 new cases are expected to be 
diagnosed annually, including over 1,600 in Nevada. More than 40,000 
lives are lost to the disease every year.
  Deanna Jensen, a lifelong Nevadan and tireless activist for breast 
cancer research, was one of those lives. Sadly, Deanna passed away this 
year after her own heroic battle against breast cancer. Although the 
loss is most painfully felt by her loved ones, her legacy can be a 
reminder to us all that there are real people and real stories behind 
the impersonal statistics.
  There are many more women across the country whose stories go 
unrecognized. But they deserve more than recognition and appreciation. 
They deserve answers to the same questions that many patients must 
surely ask themselves: Why me? Why do I have breast cancer?
  The search for those answers is the driving force behind the Breast 
Cancer and Environmental Research Act. Unfortunately, we still do not 
know what causes breast cancer, despite the remarkable progress 
achieved so far. Scientists have identified some risk factors, but 
those factors can explain fewer than 30 percent of cases. Because many 
women, and men, have no family history or known genetic links to breast 
cancer, it is generally believed that the environment plays a role in 
the development of breast cancer. However, we still do not understand 
the extent of that role.
  We do know that environmental toxins could be partly responsible for 
America's high breast cancer rate. Studies have explored the effect of 
isolated environmental factors, such as diet, pesticides, and even 
electromagnetic fields. In most cases, the results have been 
inconclusive. Furthermore, there are many other factors that are 
suspected to play a role that have yet to be studied.
  What is needed is not just a boost in the research investment on the 
role of the environment in the development of breast cancer, which has 
been very limited so far. We also need a comprehensive, national 
strategy to fully and effectively explore these issues. The Breast 
Cancer and Environmental Research Act would address both needs, thereby 
spurring on promising research. The resulting discoveries could be 
crucial to improving our knowledge of this complex illness, which could 
lead to new treatments and perhaps a cure one day.
  Specifically, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act will 
authorize $40 million each year for five years to establish multi-
institutional, multi-disciplinary Breast Cancer and Environmental 
Research Centers of Excellence. Each Center would include institutions 
with different areas of expertise working together to tackle the same 
problems from different angles, as well as collaborating with community 
organizations in the area. Modeled after the tremendously successful 
Breast Cancer Research Program at the Department of Defense, grants 
would be awarded under a competitive, peer-reviewed process that 
involves patient advocates.
  Small studies sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental 
Health Sciences are already underway to study the prenatal-to-adult 
environmental exposures that may predispose a woman to breast cancer. 
This is a promising step in the right direction, but it is only a down 
payment on the task at hand. Moreover, the research strategy for these 
grants does not follow the nationally-focused, collaborative, and 
comprehensive model as outlined by the Breast Cancer and Environmental 
Research Act. Now, more than ever, we need to see the Breast Cancer and 
Environmental Research Act signed into law.
  If we miss promising research opportunities because Congress has 
failed to act, millions more and their families will face difficult 
questions about breast cancer. Every day, many of these Americans, like 
Deanna Jensen, rise to the challenge of fighting back against breast 
cancer. I encourage Congress to heed the national call to action as 
well.
  In the 109th Congress, 66 of my Senate colleagues and 262 members of 
the House of Representatives joined me in doing so. I hope that my 
colleagues in the 110th Congress will support the Breast Cancer and 
Environmental Research Act.
  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. 579

       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 ``Breast Cancer and 
     Environmental Research Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH; AWARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT 
                   AND OPERATION OF RESEARCH CENTERS REGARDING 
                   ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS RELATED TO BREAST CANCER.

       Part A of title IV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 281 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 404H. RESEARCH CENTERS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 
                   RELATED TO BREAST CANCER.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Director of NIH, based on recommendations from the Breast 
     Cancer and Environmental Research Panel established under 
     subsection (b) (referred to in this section as the `Panel'), 
     shall make grants to public or nonprofit private entities for 
     the development and operation of collaborative, multi-
     institutional centers for the purpose of conducting 
     multidisciplinary and multi-institutional research on 
     environmental factors that may be related to the etiology of 
     breast cancer. Each such center shall be known as a Breast 
     Cancer and Environmental Research Center of Excellence.
       ``(b) Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Panel.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish within 
     the National Institutes of Health a Breast Cancer and 
     Environmental Research Panel.
       ``(2) Composition.--The Panel shall be composed of--
       ``(A) 9 members to be appointed by the Secretary, of 
     which--
       ``(i) six members shall be appointed from among physicians 
     and other health professionals, who--

       ``(I) are not officers or employees of the United States;
       ``(II) represent multiple disciplines, including clinical, 
     basic, and public health sciences;
       ``(III) represent different geographical regions of the 
     United States;
       ``(IV) are from practice settings, academia, or other 
     research settings; and
       ``(V) are experienced in peer review; and

       ``(ii) three members shall be appointed from the general 
     public who are representatives of individuals who have had 
     breast cancer and who represent a constituency; and
       ``(B) such nonvoting, ex officio members as the Secretary 
     determines to be appropriate.
       ``(3) Chairperson.--The members of the Panel appointed 
     under paragraph (2)(A) shall select a chairperson from among 
     such members.
       ``(4) Meetings.--The Panel shall meet at the call of the 
     chairperson or upon the request of the Director of NIH, but 
     in no case less often than once each year.
       ``(5) Duties.--The Panel shall--
       ``(A) develop a comprehensive strategy concerning 
     collaborative centers that would--
       ``(i) result in innovative approaches to study unexplored 
     or underexplored areas of the environment and breast cancer;
       ``(ii) outline key research questions, methodologies, and 
     knowledge gaps concerning environmental factors that may be 
     related to the etiology of breast cancer;
       ``(iii) outline key issues concerning environmental factors 
     that may be related to the etiology of breast cancer; and

[[Page S1961]]

       ``(iv) result in an overall strategy to address 
     environmental factors related to breast cancer;
       ``(B) make recommendations to the Secretary with respect to 
     the mechanisms, peer review criteria, and allocations under 
     this section;
       ``(C) assist in the overall program evaluation; and
       ``(D) make recommendations for the dissemination of 
     information on program process.
       ``(c) Collaboration With Community.--Each center under 
     subsection (a) shall include community organizations in the 
     geographic area served by the center, including those that 
     represent women with breast cancer, as integral collaborators 
     involved at all levels of the decision-making and research in 
     such center.
       ``(d) Coordination of Centers; Reports.--The Director of 
     NIH shall, as appropriate, provide for the coordination of 
     information among centers under subsection (a) and ensure 
     regular communication between such centers, and may require 
     the periodic preparation of reports on the activities of the 
     centers and the submission of the reports to the Director.
       ``(e) Required Consortium.--Each center under subsection 
     (a) shall be formed from a consortium of cooperating 
     institutions and community groups, meeting such requirements 
     as may be prescribed by the Director of NIH. Each center 
     shall require collaboration among highly accomplished 
     scientists, other health professionals and advocates of 
     diverse backgrounds from various areas of expertise.
       ``(f) Duration of Support.--Support of a center under 
     subsection (a) may be for a period not exceeding 5 years. 
     Such period may be extended for one or more additional 
     periods not exceeding 5 years if the operations of such 
     center have been reviewed by an appropriate technical and 
     scientific peer review group established by the Director of 
     NIH and if such group has recommended to the Director that 
     such period be extended.
       ``(g) Geographic Distribution of Centers.--The Director of 
     NIH shall, to the extent practicable, provide for an 
     equitable geographical distribution of centers under this 
     section.
       ``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of 
     carrying out this section, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $40,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 
     through 2012. Such authorization is in addition to any other 
     authorization of appropriations that is available for such 
     purpose.''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today along with 
my colleagues, Senators Harry Reid, John Warner, Hillary Clinton, 
Olympia Snowe, Lisa Murkowski, and Bernie Sanders, the Breast Cancer 
and Environmental Research Act of 2007.
  The American Cancer Society estimates that a woman in the United 
States has a one in eight chance of developing invasive breast cancer 
during her lifetime. This risk was about 1 in 11 in 1975. All women are 
at risk for breast cancer. About 90 percent of women who develop breast 
cancer do not have a family history of the disease. The most recent 
available statistics show that 40 percent of all women diagnosed with 
invasive breast cancer died from the disease within 20 years. These are 
frightening statistics.
  Furthermore, the disease is not limited by gender--in 2007, 
approximately 1,750 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be 
diagnosed among men in the United States. In my home State of Utah, as 
indicated by the Utah Cancer Registry, breast cancer has the highest 
incidence rate of the ten leading cancer types. This disease has an 
impact on nearly every American's life.
  Breast cancer death rates have been dropping steadily since 1991; 
however, challenges still remain. The bottom line is that we still do 
not know what causes this disease, or how to prevent it. Although 
scientists have discovered some risk factors for breast cancer, the 
known risk factors account for only a small percentage about 30 
percent--of breast cancer cases. There are no proven interventions to 
prevent breast cancer and there is no cure.
  There is general belief within the scientific community that the 
environment plays a role in the development of breast cancer, but the 
extent of that role has been less-examined. Research has investigated 
the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, 
and electromagnetic fields; but, in most cases, there has been no 
conclusive evidence. Some scientists hypothesize that certain subgroups 
of women have genetic variants that may make them more susceptible to 
adverse environmental exposures.
  In addition, a large study of twins demonstrated that the majority of 
breast cancers cannot be explained by inherited factors. The incidence 
of breast cancer in Western industrialized countries, such as the 
United States, is much higher than the incidence in Africa and Asia. 
When women migrate from a country with low incidence to a country with 
high incidence, their daughters experience the breast cancer risk of 
the new country's population. The discrepancy in incidence among 
various countries suggests that some of the differences in incidence 
may be explained by environmental exposures.
  In-depth study of these potential risks could provide invaluable 
information in understanding the causes of breast cancer, and could 
lead to new prevention strategies. Clearly, more research needs to be 
done to determine the impact of environmental factors on breast cancer.
  My colleagues and I are introducing the Breast Cancer and 
Environmental Research Act of 2007 to address this palpable need for 
research. It creates a national strategy to conduct research into the 
possible links between breast cancer and the environment. The time to 
address these frightening statistics is now.
  Specifically, the bill authorizes the National Institute of 
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) at the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH) to award grants for the development and operation of up to 
eight centers for the purpose of conducting research on environmental 
factors that may be related to breast cancer. These centers will work 
across institutions, across disciplines, and with community 
organizations to study environmental factors that may cause breast 
cancer.
  This legislation is modeled after the highly successful and promising 
Department of Defense Breast Cancer Research Program (DOD BCRP), which 
operates under a competitive, peer-reviewed grant-making process that 
involves consumers.
  Isolated studies have been conducted to look at suspected 
environmental links to breast cancer; but these studies are only a 
small step toward the broad strategic research that is required. What 
is needed is a collaborative, comprehensive, nationally-focused 
strategy to address this oversight a strategy like the one outlined in 
this bill.
  It is important to note that while we have made progress in the fight 
against breast cancer, we are still a long way from prevention or a 
cure--breast cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among 
women worldwide. Studies have shown that environmental factors that 
cause breast cancer may exist, but conclusive evidence is scarce. This 
bill will go a long way in helping the scientific community explore 
environmental triggers of breast cancer.
  The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act had strong 
bipartisan support in the 109th Congress, with 66 Senate cosponsors. In 
the House of Representatives, 262 Members supported the legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to think of breast cancer patients and their 
loved ones, and support this important bill. This Federal commitment is 
critical for the overall, national strategy and the long-term 
investments required to discover the environmental causes of breast 
cancer so that we can better prevent it, treat it more effectively, 
and, ultimately, cure it.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce the Breast 
Cancer and Environmental Research Act with Senator Reid and colleagues 
from both sides of the aisle.
  This legislation would allow us to investigate the links between 
environmental exposures and breast cancer. Improving our ability to 
investigate the connection between pollutants and cancer incidence is 
the first step in improving our overall response to environmental 
health concerns. Environmental hazards manifest themselves in 
unexpected cancers, tumors, and other diseases in ways that we are only 
now beginning to understand.
  Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death for women 
in the United States, and 3 million women in the United States are 
currently living with the disease 1 million of whom have not yet been 
diagnosed. Each year, over 13,000 women in New York State are diagnosed 
with this disease. Every one of us has been affected by breast cancer, 
whether it is through our own personal battle or our experiences 
offering love and support to our friends, our mothers, and our sisters.
  Since 2001, I have sought to raise awareness of the need for 
increased research into the connections between

[[Page S1962]]

environmental factors and the incidence of chronic diseases like breast 
cancer. I have worked closely with advocates from New York on this 
issue, and hosted a field hearing of the Senate Environment and Public 
Works Committee in Long Island to discuss breast cancer and other 
environmental health concerns.
  The bill that we are introducing today will expand the available 
resources for our scientists and expedite research in this area. The 
Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act will create Centers of 
Excellence to engage in multidisciplinary research, carried out in 
collaboration with the community, and learn more about how 
environmental factors may be linked to the more than 200,000 breast 
cancer cases diagnosed each year.
  I am hopeful that in the not-too-distant future, the incidence of 
breast cancer will be dramatically reduced, and in the handful of new 
cases that appear, we will be able to provide high-quality, highly 
effective treatment and save women's lives. But in order to achieve 
those goals, we need to learn more about all the causes of breast 
cancer, including the environmental factors that contribute to this 
disease.
  Last year, the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act was 
reported unanimously out of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions 
Committee. I will work with my colleagues there to once again move it 
through the committee process quickly, so that we can pass this 
essential legislation in this session of Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HATCH:
  S. 580. A bill to amend the National Trails System Act to require the 
Secretary of the Interior to update the feasibility and suitability 
studies of four national historic trails, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pioneer 
National Historic Trails Studies Act which would update the feasibility 
and suitability studies of four national historic trails and allow 
possible additions to them. The trails in question are the Oregon, the 
Mormon, the Pony Express, and the California National Historic Trails.
  In 1978, the Oregon and Mormon trails were established by the 
National Trails System Act which defined these trails as ``point A to 
point B,'' limiting them to one beginning point and one final 
destination. At that time, The Mormon Pioneer National Historic trail 
was defined as the route Brigham Young took in 1846 through Iowa and 
then to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. The Oregon Trail was defined 
narrowly as the route taken by settlers from Independence, MO, to 
Oregon City from 1841 to 1848. It was limited to a single trail with 
only three variants as well. Unfortunately, we have come to realize 
that this rigid definition precludes designation of some very important 
historical sites.
  Congress passed an amendment for the establishment of the California 
and Pony Express National Historic Trails in 1992. This amendment 
broadened the statute to include the possibility of trail variants for 
the California Trail and provided a more accurate depiction of the 
original trail. The legislation I am introducing today will provide 
additional authority for variation to these four trails to provide a 
more accurate depiction of history.
  To those of us in the West, these trails are the highways of our 
history. With this legislation, I hope to capture the important stories 
made along the variations of these main trails. Since the enactment of 
the National Trails System Act in 1978, there has been a great deal of 
support to broaden the Act to include these side roads of the trails.
  Not every pioneer embarked on their journey from Omaha, NE, or 
Independence, MO and not every great or tragic event took place along 
the main routes. Tens of thousands of settlers began from other 
starting points. These trail variations and alternate routes show the 
ingenuity and adaptability of the pioneers as they were forced to 
contend with inclement weather, lack of water, difficult terrain, and 
hostile Native American tribes.
  The Act requires comprehensive management for the historic trails. In 
1981, such plans were completed for the Mormon and Oregon trails. Since 
that time, however, endless hours of research by the Park Service and 
trails organizations have produced a more complete picture of the 
westward expansion. The National Park Service has determined, however, 
that legislation is required to update the trails with this newfound 
history.
  That is why I am introducing this legislation today. This bill would 
authorize the study of further important additions to the California, 
Mormon Pioneer, Oregon, and Pony Express National Historic Trails and 
allow for a more complete story to be told of our history of the West.
  I urge my colleagues to support 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. 580

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REVISION OF FEASIBILITY AND SUITABILITY STUDIES OF 
                   EXISTING NATIONAL HISTORIC TRAILS.

       Section 5 of the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1244) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(g) Revision of Feasibility and Suitability Studies of 
     Existing National Historic Trails.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(A) Route.--The term `route' includes a trail segment 
     commonly known as a cutoff.
       ``(B) Shared route.--The term `shared route' means a route 
     that was a segment of more than one historic trail, including 
     a route shared with an existing national historic trail.
       ``(2) Requirements for revision.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     revise the feasibility and suitability studies for certain 
     national trails for consideration of possible additions to 
     the trails.
       ``(B) Study requirements and objectives.--The study 
     requirements and objectives specified in subsection (b) shall 
     apply to a study required by this subsection.
       ``(C) Completion and submission of study.--A study listed 
     in this subsection shall be completed and submitted to 
     Congress not later than 3 complete fiscal years from the date 
     funds are made available for the study.
       ``(3) Oregon national historic trail.--
       ``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     undertake a study of the routes of the Oregon Trail listed in 
     subparagraph (B) and generally depicted on the map entitled 
     `Western Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and 
     of such other routes of the Oregon Trail that the Secretary 
     considers appropriate, to determine the feasibility and 
     suitability of designation of one or more of the routes as 
     components of the Oregon National Historic Trail.
       ``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
       ``(i) Whitman Mission route.
       ``(ii) Upper Columbia River.
       ``(iii) Cowlitz River route.
       ``(iv) Meek cutoff.
       ``(v) Free Emigrant Road.
       ``(vi) North Alternate Oregon Trail.
       ``(vii) Goodale's cutoff.
       ``(viii) North Side alternate route.
       ``(ix) Cutoff to Barlow road.
       ``(x) Naches Pass Trail.
       ``(4) Pony express national historic trail.--The Secretary 
     of the Interior shall undertake a study of the approximately 
     20-mile southern alternative route of the Pony Express Trail 
     from Wathena, Kansas, to Troy, Kansas, and such other routes 
     of the Pony Express Trail that the Secretary considers 
     appropriate, to determine the feasibility and suitability of 
     designation of one or more of the routes as components of the 
     Pony Express National Historic Trail.
       ``(5) California national historic trail.--
       ``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     undertake a study of the Missouri Valley, central, and 
     western routes of the California Trail listed in subparagraph 
     (B) and generally depicted on the map entitled `Western 
     Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and of such 
     other and shared Missouri Valley, central, and western routes 
     that the Secretary considers appropriate, to determine the 
     feasibility and suitability of designation of one or more of 
     the routes as components of the California National Historic 
     Trail.
       ``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
       ``(i) Missouri valley routes.--

       ``(I) Blue Mills-Independence Road.
       ``(II) Westport Landing Road.
       ``(III) Westport-Lawrence Road.
       ``(IV) Fort Leavenworth-Blue River route.
       ``(V) Road to Amazonia.
       ``(VI) Union Ferry Route.
       ``(VII) Old Wyoming-Nebraska City cutoff.
       ``(VIII) Lower Plattsmouth Route.
       ``(IX) Lower Bellevue Route.
       ``(X) Woodbury cutoff.
       ``(XI) Blue Ridge cutoff.
       ``(XII) Westport Road.

[[Page S1963]]

       ``(XIII) Gum Springs-Fort Leavenworth route.
       ``(XIV) Atchison/Independence Creek routes.
       ``(XV) Fort Leavenworth-Kansas River route.
       ``(XVI) Nebraska City cutoff routes.
       ``(XVII) Minersville-Nebraska City Road.
       ``(XVIII) Upper Plattsmouth route.
       ``(XIX) Upper Bellevue route.

       ``(ii) Central routes.--

       ``(I) Cherokee Trail, including splits.
       ``(II) Weber Canyon route of Hastings cutoff.
       ``(III) Bishop Creek cutoff.
       ``(IV) McAuley cutoff.
       ``(V) Diamond Springs cutoff.
       ``(VI) Secret Pass.
       ``(VII) Greenhorn cutoff.
       ``(VIII) Central Overland Trail.

       ``(iii) Western routes.--

       ``(I) Bidwell-Bartleson route.
       ``(II) Georgetown/Dagget Pass Trail.
       ``(III) Big Trees Road.
       ``(IV) Grizzly Flat cutoff.
       ``(V) Nevada City Road.
       ``(VI) Yreka Trail.
       ``(VII) Henness Pass route.
       ``(VIII) Johnson cutoff.
       ``(IX) Luther Pass Trail.
       ``(X) Volcano Road.
       ``(XI) Sacramento-Coloma Wagon Road.
       ``(XII) Burnett cutoff.
       ``(XIII) Placer County Road to Auburn.

       ``(6) Mormon pioneer national historic trail.--
       ``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     undertake a study of the routes of the Mormon Pioneer Trail 
     listed in subparagraph (B) and generally depicted in the map 
     entitled `Western Emigrant Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/
     1993, and of such other routes of the Mormon Pioneer Trail 
     that the Secretary considers appropriate, to determine the 
     feasibility and suitability of designation of one or more of 
     the routes as components of the Mormon Pioneer National 
     Historic Trail.
       ``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
       ``(i) 1846 Subsequent routes A and B (Lucas and Clarke 
     Counties, Iowa).
       ``(ii) 1856-57 Handcart route (Iowa City to Council 
     Bluffs).
       ``(iii) Keokuk route (Iowa).
       ``(iv) 1847 Alternative Elkhorn and Loup River Crossings in 
     Nebraska.
       ``(v) Fort Leavenworth Road; Ox Bow route and alternates in 
     Kansas and Missouri (Oregon and California Trail routes used 
     by Mormon emigrants).
       ``(vi) 1850 Golden Pass Road in Utah.
       ``(7) Shared california and oregon trail routes.--
       ``(A) Study required.--The Secretary of the Interior shall 
     undertake a study of the shared routes of the California 
     Trail and Oregon Trail listed in subparagraph (B) and 
     generally depicted on the map entitled `Western Emigrant 
     Trails 1830/1870' and dated 1991/1993, and of such other 
     shared routes that the Secretary considers appropriate, to 
     determine the feasibility and suitability of designation of 
     one or more of the routes as shared components of the 
     California National Historic Trail and the Oregon National 
     Historic Trail.
       ``(B) Covered routes.--The routes to be studied under 
     subparagraph (A) shall include the following:
       ``(i) St. Joe Road.
       ``(ii) Council Bluffs Road.
       ``(iii) Sublette cutoff.
       ``(iv) Applegate route.
       ``(v) Old Fort Kearny Road (Oxbow Trail).
       ``(vi) Childs cutoff.
       ``(vii) Raft River to Applegate.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. FEINGOLD:
  S. 581. A bill to amend the Buy American Act to increase the 
requirement for American-made content, to tighten the waiver 
provisions, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
help American workers and companies.
  The bill that I am introducing, the Buy American Improvement Act, 
focuses on the Federal Government's responsibility to support domestic 
manufacturers and workers and on the role of Federal procurement policy 
in achieving this goal. The reintroduction of this bill, which I first 
introduced in 2003, is part of my ongoing efforts to stem the flow of 
manufacturing jobs abroad.
  The Buy American Act of 1933 is the primary statute that governs 
Federal procurement. The name of this law accurately describes its 
purpose: to ensure that the Federal Government supports domestic 
companies and domestic workers by buying American-made goods. 
Regrettably, this law contains a number of loopholes that make it too 
easy for government agencies to buy foreign-made goods.
  My bill, the Buy American Improvement Act, would strengthen the 
existing law by tightening its waiver provisions. Currently, the heads 
of Federal departments and agencies are given broad discretion to waive 
the Act and buy foreign goods with little or no accountability. We 
should ensure that the Federal Government makes every effort to give 
Federal contracts to companies that will perform the work domestically. 
We should also ensure that certain types of industries do not leave the 
United States completely, thus making the Federal Government dependent 
on foreign sources for goods, such as plane or ship parts, that our 
military may need to acquire on short notice.
  I have often heard my colleagues say on this floor that American-made 
goods are the best in the world. I could not agree more. Regrettably, 
nearly 90,000 good-paying manufacturing jobs have left my State since 
2000. And the country has lost around 3 million manufacturing jobs 
since January 2001. This hemorrhaging of jobs shows that Congress needs 
to do more to support domestic manufacturers and their employees. One 
way to do this is to ensure that the Federal Government makes every 
effort to buy American-made goods.
  There are five primary waivers to the Buy American Act, and my bill 
addresses four of them. The first of these waivers allows an agency 
head to buy foreign goods if complying with the Act would be 
``inconsistent with the public interest.'' I am concerned that this 
waiver, which includes no definition for what is ``inconsistent with 
the public interest,'' is actually a gaping loophole that gives too 
much discretion to department secretaries and agency heads. My bill 
would modify this waiver provision to prohibit it from being invoked by 
an agency or department head after a request for proposals, or RFP, has 
been published in the Federal Register. Once the bidding process has 
begun, the Federal Government should not be able to pull an RFP by 
saying that it is in the ``public interest'' to do so. This 
determination, sometimes referred to as the Buy American Act's national 
security waiver, should be made well in advance of placing a contract 
up for bid. To do otherwise pulls the rug out from under companies that 
are spending valuable time and resources to prepare a bid for a Federal 
contract.
  The Buy American Act may also be waived if the head of the agency 
determines that the cost of the lowestpriced domestic product is 
``unreasonable,'' and a system of price differentials is used to assist 
in making this determination. My bill would modify this waiver to 
require that preference be given to the American company if that 
company's bid is substantially similar to the lowest foreign bid or if 
the American company is the only domestic source for the item to be 
procured.
  I have a long record of supporting efforts to help taxpayers get the 
most bang for their buck and opposing wasteful Federal spending. I 
don't think anyone can argue that supporting American jobs is 
``wasteful.'' We owe it to American manufacturers and their employees 
to make sure they get a fair shake. I would not support awarding a 
contract to an American company that is price gouging, but we should 
make every effort to ensure that domestic sources for goods needed by 
the Federal Government do not dry up because American companies have 
been slightly underbid by foreign competitors.
  The Buy American Act also includes a waiver for goods bought by the 
Federal Government that will be used outside of the United States. 
There is no question that there are occasions when the Federal 
Government needs to procure items quickly for use outside the United 
States. However, there may be items that are bought on a regular basis 
and used at foreign military bases or United States embassies, for 
example, that could reasonably be procured from domestic sources and 
shipped to the location where they will be used. My bill would require 
Federal agencies to compare the difference in cost for obtaining 
articles that are used on a regular basis outside the U.S., or that are 
not needed immediately, between an overseas versus a domestic source--
including the cost of shipping--before awarding the contract to the 
company that will do the work overseas.
  The Buy American Act's domestic source requirements may also be 
waived if the articles to be procured are not available from domestic 
sources ``in sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities 
and of

[[Page S1964]]

a satisfactory quality.'' My bill would require that an agency or 
department head, prior to issuing such as waiver, determine whether 
domestic production can be initiated to meet the procurement needs and 
whether a comparable article, material, or supply is available 
domestically.

  My bill would also strengthen the Buy American Act in four other 
ways. It would, for the first time, make the Buy American requirement 
applicable to the United States Congress. The current definition of a 
Federal agency in the Act specifically exempts the Senate, the House, 
and the Architect of the Capitol, and activities under the direction of 
the Architect. I believe that Congress should lead by example and 
comply with the Buy American Act, a requirement that we have imposed on 
executive agencies.
  Secondly, my bill would increase the minimum American content 
standard for qualification under the Act from the current 50 percent to 
75 percent. The definition of what qualifies as an American-made 
product has been a source of much debate. To me, it seems clear that 
``American-made'' means manufactured in this country. This 
classification is a source of pride for manufacturing workers around 
our country. The current 50 percent standard should be raised to a 
minimum of 75 percent.
  In addition, my bill would put in place for the next five years the 
expanded reporting requirement that I authored which was first enacted 
as part of the fiscal year 2004 omnibus spending bill and was included 
again by this body as an amendment to the recent minimum wage bill. 
Prior to the enactment of these provisions, only the Department of 
Defense was required to report to Congress on its use of Buy American 
waivers and purchases of foreign goods. It is virtually impossible to 
get hard numbers on the Federal Government's purchases of foreign--and 
domestic--made goods and to ensure that there is disclosure and 
accountability in the waiver process. This reporting requirement seeks 
to hold agencies accountable by requiring agencies to report on their 
foreign-made purchases and make that information available to Congress 
and the American public.
  The annual report to be submitted by agency heads will be required to 
include the following information: the dollar value of any items 
purchased that were manufactured outside of the United States; an 
itemized list of all applicable waivers granted with respect to such 
items under the Buy American Act, including the type of waiver used; 
and a summary of the total procurement funds spent by the Federal 
agency on goods manufactured in the United States versus on goods 
manufactured overseas. In addition, my bill also requires that the 
heads of all Federal agencies make these annual reports publicly 
available on the Internet.
  Finally, my bill would require the Government Accountability Office 
to report to Congress with recommendations for defining the terms 
``inconsistent with the public interest'' and ``unreasonable cost'' for 
purposes of invoking the corresponding waivers in the Act. I am 
concerned that both of these terms lack definitions, and that they can 
be very broadly interpreted by agency or department heads. GAO would be 
required to make recommendations for statutory definitions of both of 
these terms, as well as for establishing a consistent waiver process 
that can be used by all Federal agencies.
  The gaping loopholes in the Buy American Act and the trade agreements 
and defense procurement agreements that contain additional waivers of 
domestic source restrictions have combined to weaken our domestic 
manufacturing base by allowing--and sometimes actually encouraging--the 
Federal Government to buy foreign-made goods. Congress can and should 
do more to support American companies and American workers. We must 
strengthen the Buy American Act and we must stop entering into bad 
trade agreements that send our jobs overseas and undermine our own 
domestic preference laws.
  By strengthening Federal procurement policy, we can help to bolster 
our domestic manufacturers during these difficult times. As I have 
repeatedly noted, Congress cannot simply stand on the sidelines while 
tens of thousands of American manufacturing jobs have been and continue 
to be shipped overseas. While there may be no single solution to this 
problem one way in which Congress should act is by strengthening the 
Buy American Act.
  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. 581

       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 ``Buy American Improvement Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR WAIVERS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 
     U.S.C. 10a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Special Rules.--The following rules shall apply in 
     carrying out the provisions of subsection (a):
       ``(1) Public interest waiver.--A determination that it is 
     not in the public interest to enter into a contract in 
     accordance with this Act may not be made after a notice of 
     solicitation of offers for the contract is published in 
     accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal 
     Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)).
       ``(2) Domestic bidder.--A Federal agency entering into a 
     contract shall give preference to a company submitting an 
     offer on the contract that manufactures in the United States 
     the article, material, or supply for which the offer is 
     solicited, if--
       ``(A) that company's offer is substantially the same as an 
     offer made by a company that does not manufacture the 
     article, material, or supply in the United States; or
       ``(B) that company is the only company that manufactures in 
     the United States the article, material, or supply for which 
     the offer is solicited.
       ``(3) Use outside the united states.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subsection (a) shall apply without 
     regard to whether the articles, materials, or supplies to be 
     acquired are for use outside the United States if the 
     articles, materials, or supplies are not needed on an urgent 
     basis or if they are acquired on a regular basis.
       ``(B) Cost analysis.--In any case in which the articles, 
     materials, or supplies are to be acquired for use outside the 
     United States and are not needed on an urgent basis, before 
     entering into a contract an analysis shall be made of the 
     difference in the cost of acquiring the articles, materials, 
     or supplies from a company manufacturing the articles, 
     materials, or supplies in the United States (including the 
     cost of shipping) and the cost of acquiring the articles, 
     materials, or supplies from a company manufacturing the 
     articles, materials, or supplies outside the United States 
     (including the cost of shipping).
       ``(4) Domestic availability.--The head of a Federal agency 
     may not make a determination under subsection (a) that an 
     article, material, or supply is not mined, produced, or 
     manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States in 
     sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and 
     of satisfactory quality, unless the head of the agency has 
     conducted a study and, on the basis of such study, determined 
     that--
       ``(A) domestic production cannot be initiated to meet the 
     procurement needs; and
       ``(B) a comparable article, material, or supply is not 
     available from a company in the United States.
       ``(c) Reports.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the end of 
     each of fiscal years 2007 through 2011, the head of each 
     Federal agency shall submit to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the amount of the acquisitions 
     made by the agency in that fiscal year of articles, 
     materials, or supplies purchased from entities that 
     manufacture the articles, materials, or supplies outside of 
     the United States.
       ``(2) Contents of report.--The report required by paragraph 
     (1) shall separately include, for the fiscal year covered by 
     such report--
       ``(A) the dollar value of any articles, materials, or 
     supplies that were manufactured outside the United States;
       ``(B) an itemized list of all waivers granted with respect 
     to such articles, materials, or supplies under this Act, and 
     a citation to the treaty, international agreement, or other 
     law under which each waiver was granted;
       ``(C) if any articles, materials, or supplies were acquired 
     from entities that manufacture articles, materials, or 
     supplies outside the United States, the specific exception 
     under this section that was used to purchase such articles, 
     materials, or supplies; and
       ``(D) a summary of--
       ``(i) the total procurement funds expended on articles, 
     materials, and supplies manufactured inside the United 
     States; and
       ``(ii) the total procurement funds expended on articles, 
     materials, and supplies manufactured outside the United 
     States.

[[Page S1965]]

       ``(3) Public availability.--The head of each Federal agency 
     submitting a report under paragraph (1) shall make the report 
     publicly available to the maximum extent practicable.
       ``(4) Exception for intelligence community.--This 
     subsection shall not apply to acquisitions made by an agency, 
     or component thereof, that is an element of the intelligence 
     community as specified in, or designated under, section 3(4) 
     of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401a(4)).''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 1 of the Buy American Act (41 
     U.S.C. 10c) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Federal Agency.--The term `Federal agency' means any 
     executive agency (as defined in section 4(1) of the Office of 
     Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403(1))) or any 
     establishment in the legislative or judicial branch of the 
     Federal Government.
       ``(d) Substantially All.--Articles, materials, or supplies 
     shall be treated as made substantially all from articles, 
     materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in 
     the United States, if the cost of the domestic components of 
     such articles, materials, or supplies exceeds 75 percent of 
     the total cost of all components of such articles, materials, 
     or supplies.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2 of the Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a) is 
     amended by striking ``department or independent 
     establishment'' and inserting ``Federal agency''.
       (2) Section 3 of such Act (41 U.S.C. 10b) is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking ``department or 
     independent establishment'' and inserting ``Federal agency''; 
     and
       (B) in subsection (b), by striking ``department, bureau, 
     agency, or independent establishment'' and inserting 
     ``Federal agency''.
       (3) Section 633 of the National Military Establishment 
     Appropriation Act, 1950 (41 U.S.C. 10d) is amended by 
     striking ``department or independent establishment'' and 
     inserting ``Federal agency''.

     SEC. 3. GAO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Report on Scope of Waivers.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall report to Congress 
     recommendations to be used in determining, for purposes of 
     applying the waiver provision of section 2(a) of the Buy 
     American Act, as redesignated by section 2(a) of this Act, 
     whether acquiring articles, materials, and supplies mined, 
     produced, or manufactured in the United States would--
       (1) involve unreasonable cost; or
       (2) be inconsistent with the public interest.
       (b) Recommendations.--The report described in subsection 
     (a) shall include recommendations--
       (1) for a statutory definition of unreasonable cost and for 
     standards for determining inconsistency with the public 
     interest; and
       (2) for establishing procedures for applying the waiver 
     provisions of the Buy American Act that can be consistently 
     applied.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Reed, and Mr. 
        Alexander):
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today Senator Rockefeller and I are 
introducing the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act of 2007. This legislation 
would reduce the tremendous economic and human losses that fire 
inflicts on the National economy and the quality of life.
  In 2005, fire departments responded to about 1.6 million fires. These 
fires resulted in about 3,500 deaths and almost 18,000 civilian 
injuries. Fire also caused over $10 billion in direct property damages 
in 2005.
  Fire sprinklers can dramatically decrease loss of life and injury as 
a result of fires. The National Fire Protection Association has no 
record of a fire killing more than two people in a completely 
sprinklered public assembly, educational, institutional, or residential 
building where the system was properly installed and fully operational. 
Fire sprinklers also mitigate economic losses resulting from fires. 
Fire sprinklers are responsible for a 70-percent reduction in property 
damage from fires in public assembly, educational, residential, 
commercial, industrial, and manufacturing buildings.
  The Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act will provide an incentive for 
businesses to protect their buildings with fire sprinklers. Under 
current law, the cost of retrofitting an existing building with 
automatic fire sprinklers generally would be depreciated over a 39-year 
period. Our legislation would reduce the depreciation period to 5 
years, greatly reducing the economic burden of retrofitting a building.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this 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. 582

       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 ``Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the publication of the original study and comprehensive 
     list of recommendations in America Burning, written in 1974, 
     requesting advances in fire prevention through the 
     installation of automatic sprinkler systems in existing 
     buildings have yet to be fully implemented;
       (2) fire departments responded to approximately 1,600,000 
     fires in 2005;
       (3) there were 3,675 non-terrorist related deaths in the 
     United States and almost 17,925 civilian injuries resulting 
     from fire in 2005;
       (4) 87 firefighters were killed in 2005;
       (5) fire caused $10,672,000,000 in direct property damage 
     in 2005, and sprinklers are responsible for a 70 percent 
     reduction in property damage from fires in public assembly, 
     educational, residential, commercial, industrial and 
     manufacturing buildings;
       (6) fire departments respond to a fire every 20 seconds, a 
     fire breaks out in a structure every 61 seconds and in a 
     residential structure every 79 seconds in the United States;
       (7) the Station Nightclub in West Warwick, Rhode Island, 
     did not contain an automated sprinkler system and burned 
     down, killing 99 people on February 20, 2003;
       (8) due to an automated sprinkler system, not a single 
     person was injured from a fire beginning in the Fine Line 
     Music Cafe in Minneapolis after the use of pyrotechnics on 
     February 17, 2003;
       (9) the National Fire Protection Association has no record 
     of a fire killing more than 2 people in a completely 
     sprinklered public assembly, educational, institutional or 
     residential building where the system was properly installed 
     and fully operational;
       (10) sprinkler systems dramatically improve the chances of 
     survival of those who cannot save themselves, specifically 
     older adults, young children and people with disabilities;
       (11) the financial cost of upgrading fire counter measures 
     in buildings built prior to fire safety codes is prohibitive 
     for most property owners;
       (12) many State and local governments lack any requirements 
     for older structures to contain automatic sprinkler systems;
       (13) under the present straight-line method of 
     depreciation, there is a disincentive for building safety 
     improvements due to an extremely low rate of return on 
     investment; and
       (14) the Nation is in need of incentives for the voluntary 
     installation and retrofitting of buildings with automated 
     sprinkler systems to save the lives of countless individuals 
     and responding firefighters as well as drastically reduce the 
     costs from property damage.

     SEC. 3. CLASSIFICATION OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 168(e)(3) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 5-year 
     property) is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause 
     (v), by striking the period at the end of clause (vi) and 
     inserting ``, and'', and by inserting after clause (vi) the 
     following:
       ``(vii) any automatic fire sprinkler system placed in 
     service after the date of the enactment of this clause in a 
     building structure which was placed in service before such 
     date of enactment.''.
       (b) Alternative System.--The table contained in section 
     168(g)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to special rule for certain property assigned to classes) is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to subparagraph 
     (B)(iii) the following:

``(B)(vii).........................................................7''.

       (c) Definition of Automatic Fire Sprinkler System.--
     Subsection (i) of section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(18) Automated fire sprinkler system.--The term 
     `automated fire sprinkler system' means those sprinkler 
     systems classified under one or more of the following 
     publications of the National Fire Protection Association--
       ``(A) NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems,
       ``(B) NFPA 13 D, Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One 
     and Two Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, and
       ``(C) NFPA 13 R, Installation of Sprinkler Systems in 
     Residential Occupancies up to and Including Four Stories in 
     Height.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to property placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, today I rise to join my colleague Mr. 
Smith in the introduction of the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act. Two 
years ago, we first introduced this legislation to help provide 
businesses with an important tax incentive to install lifesaving 
sprinkler systems, believing that the legislation would be one way to 
keep our Nation's citizens, and the firefighters who dedicate their 
lives to fire safety, free from unnecessary fire-related injury. At 
that time, I could not imagine that in 2007 West Virginia would suffer 
one of the worst fire-related tragedies in many years. In January of 
this year, a fire at the Emmons Junior Apartment Building in 
Huntington, WV, took the lives of nine individuals, including three 
teenagers

[[Page S1966]]

who were all siblings and another unrelated child who was only seven 
years old. My heart goes out to those families and to a devastated 
community. We later learned that the complex was built in 1924 and was 
not equipped with a sprinkler system. I cannot help thinking that if 
the tax incentives provided by this legislation were already in effect, 
many businesses including those operating apartment complexes might 
have had enough financial incentive to allow them to make the decision 
to install life-saving sprinkler systems.
  Fire safety is a national problem. The National Fire Protection 
Association (NFPA) indicates that in 2005 there were over 1.6 million 
fires reported in the United States, which caused 3,675 civilian 
deaths, 17,925 civilian injuries, and $10.7 billion in property damage. 
As a result, 80,100 firefighters were injured and another 87 died 
responding to these fires in an effort to protect the lives of their 
fellow citizens. High-rise buildings and other living facilities that 
were built under older codes often lack adequate fire safety protection 
and leave vulnerable those citizens who cannot as easily save 
themselves from a fire, such as older adults, young children, and 
people with disabilities. There were 511,000 structure fires in 2005, 
and 381,000 of those occurred in family home structures including 
dwellings, duplexes, manufactured homes, apartments, townhouses, 
rowhouses, and condominiums. These home structure fires accounted for 
82 percent of civilian fire-related fatalities and $6.7 billion in 
direct property damage.
  Protecting our citizens and first-responders from these fire-related 
injuries and fatalities is of the utmost importance, and a real way to 
improve fire safety exists in the use of automatic sprinkler systems. 
These devices react quickly and save lives by dramatically reducing the 
heat, flames and smoke produced in a fire. The NFPA reports that when 
sprinklers are present, the chances of dying in a fire are reduced by 
between 50 and 75 percent and average property loss is cut by one-half 
to two-thirds. The NFPA also has no record of a fire killing more than 
two people in a building where a sprinkler system was properly 
installed and fully operational.
  The benefits of fire sprinkler systems are overwhelming, even for 
business owners, but one thing that inhibits their implementation is 
cost. Under current law, installations in residential rental property 
and non-residential real property must be deducted over a 27.5- or 39-
year period, respectively. The financial cost of upgrading existing 
structures with fire safety measures is prohibitive for most property 
owners, and under our present straight-line method of depreciation, 
there is disincentive for building safety improvements due to an 
extremely low rate of return on investment. This legislation, by 
amending the internal revenue code to classify automatic fire sprinkler 
systems as depreciable over a 5-year period, would mitigate the expense 
of retrofitting older buildings with costly automated sprinkler 
systems. It helps businesses make the choice to take advantage of fire 
safety systems that have been proven to have life-saving results.
  I again express my support for the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act as a 
way to promote the use of fire sprinkler systems that are now an 
invaluable asset in our efforts to protect citizens and firefighters 
from fire-related death and injury. This proposal has been endorsed by 
firefighters, the insurance industry, and general contractors, and I 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SALAZAR:
  S. 583. A bill to create a competitive grant program for States to 
enable the States to award salary bonuses to highly qualified 
elementary school or secondary school teachers who teach, or commit to 
teach, for at least 3 academic years in a school served by a rural 
local educational agency; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, the second piece of legislation I am 
introducing has to do with education. We know rural school districts 
have a very hard time in terms of retaining teachers. The national 
teacher turnover rate across the country is about 15 percent, but in 
rural districts it is as high as 30 to 40 percent. Thirty to forty 
percent of teachers in rural school districts are turning over.
  So what I hope to do with the Colorado Teacher Retention Act is to 
help with a competitive State program that would allow rural school 
districts to provide bonuses for highly qualified teachers who commit 
to teaching in rural schools for at least 3 years. It would simply 
provide an opportunity for rural schools to have the kind of excellence 
in teaching they so deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN:
  S. 586. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide 
grants to promote positive health behaviors in women and children; to 
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today, 
entitled the ``Community Health Workers Act of 2007,'' would improve 
access to health education and outreach services to women and children 
in medically underserved areas, including the U.S. border region along 
New Mexico.
  Lack of access to adequate health care and health education is a 
significant problem on the southern New Mexico border. While the access 
problem is in part due to a lack of insurance, it is also attributable 
to non-financial barriers to access. These barriers include a shortage 
of physicians and other health professionals, and hospitals; inadequate 
transportation; a shortage of bilingual health information and health 
providers; and culturally insensitive systems of care.
  This legislation would help to address the issue of access by 
providing $15 million per year for a three year period in grants to 
State, local, and tribal organizations, including community health 
centers and public health departments, for the purpose of hiring 
community health workers to provide health education, outreach, and 
referrals to women and families who otherwise would have little or no 
contact with health care services.
  Recognizing factors such as poverty and language and cultural 
differences that often serve as barriers to health care access in 
medically underserved populations, community health workers are in a 
unique position to improve health outcomes and quality of care for 
groups that have traditionally lacked access to adequate services. They 
often serve as ``community specialists'' and are members of the 
communities in which they work. As such they can effectively serve 
hard-to-reach populations.
  A shining example of how community health workers serve their 
communities, a group of so-called ``Promotoras'' in Dona Ana County 
were quickly mobilized during a recent flood emergency in rural New 
Mexico. These community health workers assisted in the disaster 
recovery efforts by partnering with FEMA to find, inform and register 
flood victims for Federal disaster assistance. Their personal networks 
and knowledge of the local culture, language, needs, assets, and 
barriers greatly enhanced FEMA's community outreach efforts. The 
Promotoras of Dona Ana County demonstrate the important role community 
health workers could play in communities across the nation, including 
increasing the effectiveness of new initiatives in homeland security 
and emergency preparedness, and in implementing risk communication 
strategies.
  The positive benefits of the community health worker model also have 
been documented in research studies. Research has shown that community 
health workers have been effective in increasing the utilization of 
health preventive services such as cancer screenings and medical follow 
up for elevated blood pressure and improving enrollment in publicly 
funded health insurance programs. In the case of uninsured children, a 
study by Dr. Glenn Flores, ``Community-Based Case Management in 
Insuring Uninsured Latino Children,'' published in the December 2005 
issue of Pediatrics found that uninsured children who received 
community-based case management were eight times more likely to obtain 
health insurance coverage than other children involved in the study 
because case workers were employed to address typical barriers to 
access, including insufficient knowledge about application processes 
and eligibility criteria, language barriers and family mobility

[[Page S1967]]

issues, among others. This study confirms that community health workers 
could be highly effective in reducing the numbers of uninsured 
children, especially those who are at greatest risk for being 
uninsured. Preliminary investigation of a community health workers 
project in New Mexico similarly suggests that community health workers 
could be useful in improving enrollment in Medicaid and the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program, or ``SCHIP.''
  According to a 2003 Institute of Medicine, IOM, report entitled, 
``Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in 
Healthcare,'' community health workers offer promise as a community-
based resource to increase racial and ethnic minorities' access to 
health care and to serve as a liaison between healthcare providers and 
the communities they serve.
  Although the community health worker model is valued in the New 
Mexico border region as well as other parts of the country that 
encounter challenges of meeting the health care needs of medically 
underserved populations, these programs often have difficulty securing 
adequate financial resources to maintain and expand upon their 
services. As a result, many of these programs are significantly limited 
in their ability to meet the ongoing and emerging health demands of 
their communities.
  The 10M report also noted that ``programs to support the use of 
community health workers . . . especially among medically underserved 
and racial and ethnic minority populations, should be expanded, 
evaluated, and replicated.''
  I am introducing this legislation to increase resources for a model 
that has shown significant promise for increasing access to quality 
health care and health education for families in medically underserved 
communities.
  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. 586

       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 ``Community Health Workers Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Chronic diseases, defined as any condition that 
     requires regular medical attention or medication, are the 
     leading cause of death and disability for women in the United 
     States across racial and ethnic groups.
       (2) According to the National Vital Statistics Report of 
     2001, the 5 leading causes of death among Hispanic, American 
     Indian, and African-American women are heart disease, cancer, 
     diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, and unintentional 
     injuries.
       (3) Unhealthy behaviors alone lead to more than 50 percent 
     of premature deaths in the United States.
       (4) Poor diet, physical inactivity, tobacco use, and 
     alcohol and drug abuse are the health risk behaviors that 
     most often lead to disease, premature death, and disability, 
     and are particularly prevalent among many groups of minority 
     women.
       (5) Over 60 percent of Hispanic and African-American women 
     are classified as overweight and over 30 percent are 
     classified as obese. Over 60 percent of American Indian women 
     are classified as obese.
       (6) American Indian women have the highest mortality rates 
     related to alcohol and drug use of all women in the United 
     States.
       (7) High poverty rates coupled with barriers to health 
     preventive services and medical care contribute to racial and 
     ethnic disparities in health factors, including premature 
     death, life expectancy, risk factors associated with major 
     diseases, and the extent and severity of illnesses.
       (8) There is increasing evidence that early life 
     experiences are associated with adult chronic disease and 
     that prevention and intervention services provided within the 
     community and the home may lessen the impact of chronic 
     outcomes, while strengthening families and communities.
       (9) Community health workers, who are primarily women, can 
     be a critical component in conducting health promotion and 
     disease prevention efforts in medically underserved 
     populations.
       (10) Recognizing the difficult barriers confronting 
     medically underserved communities (poverty, geographic 
     isolation, language and cultural differences, lack of 
     transportation, low literacy, and lack of access to 
     services), community health workers are in a unique position 
     to reduce preventable morbidity and mortality, improve the 
     quality of life, and increase the utilization of available 
     preventive health services for community members.
       (11) Research has shown that community health workers have 
     been effective in significantly increasing health insurance 
     coverage, screening and medical follow-up visits among 
     residents with limited access or underutilization of health 
     care services.
       (12) States on the United States-Mexico border have high 
     percentages of impoverished and ethnic minority populations: 
     border States accommodate 60 percent of the total Hispanic 
     population and 23 percent of the total population below 200 
     percent poverty in the United States.

     SEC. 3. GRANTS TO PROMOTE POSITIVE HEALTH BEHAVIORS IN WOMEN.

       Part P of title III of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 280g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 399S. GRANTS TO PROMOTE POSITIVE HEALTH BEHAVIORS IN 
                   WOMEN.

       ``(a) Grants Authorized.--The Secretary, in collaboration 
     with the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and 
     Prevention and other Federal officials determined appropriate 
     by the Secretary, is authorized to award grants to States or 
     local or tribal units, to promote positive health behaviors 
     for women and children in target populations, especially 
     racial and ethnic minority women and children in medically 
     underserved communities.
       ``(b) Use of Funds.--Grants awarded pursuant to subsection 
     (a) may be used to support community health workers--
       ``(1) to educate, guide, and provide outreach in a 
     community setting regarding health problems prevalent among 
     women and children and especially among racial and ethnic 
     minority women and children;
       ``(2) to educate, guide, and provide experiential learning 
     opportunities that target behavioral risk factors including--
       ``(A) poor nutrition;
       ``(B) physical inactivity;
       ``(C) being overweight or obese;
       ``(D) tobacco use;
       ``(E) alcohol and substance use;
       ``(F) injury and violence;
       ``(G) risky sexual behavior; and
       ``(H) mental health problems;
       ``(3) to educate and guide regarding effective strategies 
     to promote positive health behaviors within the family;
       ``(4) to educate and provide outreach regarding enrollment 
     in health insurance including the State Children's Health 
     Insurance Program under title XXI of the Social Security Act, 
     Medicare under title XVIII of such Act and Medicaid under 
     title XIX of such Act;
       ``(5) to promote community wellness and awareness; and
       ``(6) to educate and refer target populations to 
     appropriate health care agencies and community-based programs 
     and organizations in order to increase access to quality 
     health care services, including preventive health services.
       ``(c) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--Each State or local or tribal unit 
     (including federally recognized tribes and Alaska native 
     villages) that desires to receive a grant under subsection 
     (a) shall submit an application to the Secretary, at such 
     time, in such manner, and accompanied by such additional 
     information as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to 
     paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) describe the activities for which assistance under 
     this section is sought;
       ``(B) contain an assurance that with respect to each 
     community health worker program receiving funds under the 
     grant awarded, such program provides training and supervision 
     to community health workers to enable such workers to provide 
     authorized program services;
       ``(C) contain an assurance that the applicant will evaluate 
     the effectiveness of community health worker programs 
     receiving funds under the grant;
       ``(D) contain an assurance that each community health 
     worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide 
     services in the cultural context most appropriate for the 
     individuals served by the program;
       ``(E) contain a plan to document and disseminate project 
     description and results to other States and organizations as 
     identified by the Secretary; and
       ``(F) describe plans to enhance the capacity of individuals 
     to utilize health services and health-related social services 
     under Federal, State, and local programs by--
       ``(i) assisting individuals in establishing eligibility 
     under the programs and in receiving the services or other 
     benefits of the programs; and
       ``(ii) providing other services as the Secretary determines 
     to be appropriate, that may include transportation and 
     translation services.
       ``(d) Priority.--In awarding grants under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall give priority to those applicants--
       ``(1) who propose to target geographic areas--
       ``(A) with a high percentage of residents who are eligible 
     for health insurance but are uninsured or underinsured;
       ``(B) with a high percentage of families for whom English 
     is not their primary language; and
       ``(C) that encompass the United States-Mexico border 
     region;
       ``(2) with experience in providing health or health-related 
     social services to individuals who are underserved with 
     respect to such services; and
       ``(3) with documented community activity and experience 
     with community health workers.

[[Page S1968]]

       ``(e) Collaboration With Academic Institutions.--The 
     Secretary shall encourage community health worker programs 
     receiving funds under this section to collaborate with 
     academic institutions. Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to require such collaboration.
       ``(f) Quality Assurance and Cost-Effectiveness.--The 
     Secretary shall establish guidelines for assuring the quality 
     of the training and supervision of community health workers 
     under the programs funded under this section and for assuring 
     the cost-effectiveness of such programs.
       ``(g) Monitoring.--The Secretary shall monitor community 
     health worker programs identified in approved applications 
     and shall determine whether such programs are in compliance 
     with the guidelines established under subsection (f).
       ``(h) Technical Assistance.--The Secretary may provide 
     technical assistance to community health worker programs 
     identified in approved applications with respect to planning, 
     developing, and operating programs under the grant.
       ``(i) Report to Congress.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date on 
     which the Secretary first awards grants under subsection (a), 
     the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report regarding the 
     grant project.
       ``(2) Contents.--The report required under paragraph (1) 
     shall include the following:
       ``(A) A description of the programs for which grant funds 
     were used.
       ``(B) The number of individuals served.
       ``(C) An evaluation of--
       ``(i) the effectiveness of these programs;
       ``(ii) the cost of these programs; and
       ``(iii) the impact of the project on the health outcomes of 
     the community residents.
       ``(D) Recommendations for sustaining the community health 
     worker programs developed or assisted under this section.
       ``(E) Recommendations regarding training to enhance career 
     opportunities for community health workers.
       ``(j) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Community health worker.--The term `community health 
     worker' means an individual who promotes health or nutrition 
     within the community in which the individual resides--
       ``(A) by serving as a liaison between communities and 
     health care agencies;
       ``(B) by providing guidance and social assistance to 
     community residents;
       ``(C) by enhancing community residents' ability to 
     effectively communicate with health care providers;
       ``(D) by providing culturally and linguistically 
     appropriate health or nutrition education;
       ``(E) by advocating for individual and community health or 
     nutrition needs; and
       ``(F) by providing referral and followup services.
       ``(2) Community setting.--The term `community setting' 
     means a home or a community organization located in the 
     neighborhood in which a participant resides.
       ``(3) Medically underserved community.--The term `medically 
     underserved community' means a community identified by a 
     State--
       ``(A) that has a substantial number of individuals who are 
     members of a medically underserved population, as defined by 
     section 330(b)(3); and
       ``(B) a significant portion of which is a health 
     professional shortage area as designated under section 332.
       ``(4) Support.--The term `support' means the provision of 
     training, supervision, and materials needed to effectively 
     deliver the services described in subsection (b), 
     reimbursement for services, and other benefits.
       ``(5) Target population.--The term `target population' 
     means women of reproductive age, regardless of their current 
     childbearing status and children under 21 years of age.
       ``(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section 
     $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. NELSON of Florida (for himself, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Biden):
  S. 588. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
increase the Medicare caps on graduate medical education positions for 
States with a shortage of residents; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleague Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as we introduce the 
Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2007. The bill would 
enhance America's health care infrastructure by expanding the number of 
Medicare-supported physician residency training positions in States 
with a shortage of residents.
  Over the past several years, a number of studies have concluded that 
this country is facing, or soon will face, physician shortages. The 
Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME) and the Association of 
American Medical Colleges (AAMC) recently issued reports, which 
concluded that our Nation will likely lack an adequate number of 
physicians to meet patient demand by the year 2020.
  By expanding the number of Medicare-supported physician residency 
training positions in our Nation's teaching hospitals, we can help 
stabilize America's health care infrastructure and alleviate physician 
shortages. Unfortunately, in 1997, the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) 
``capped'' the number of residents that each teaching hospital could 
claim for Medicare payment purposes. In general, Medicare does not 
reimburse hospitals for residents they train that are above the capped 
number of residency slots.
  There are no exceptions that allow hospitals to permanently adjust 
their caps. For example, the cap on physician training positions does 
not adjust for population growth. In many States, including Florida, 
populations continue to grow both in size and age and physician 
shortages are occurring or soon will occur. Ten years ago, Florida's 
ratio of physicians to population was above the national average. 
Today, Florida is among the States seeing the slowest growth in 
physician supply. A major reason for the slow growth in Florida is the 
lack of physician residents.
  A recent study by the AAMC ranks Florida 44th among States with 
federally funded medical residency positions, with 16 residents per 
100,000 people. This problem will worsen over time because Florida's 
population continues to grow and Federal funding for graduate medical 
education slots has been capped and cannot grow to reflect the need.
  Because physicians tend to remain in the region where they complete 
their medical training, increasing the number of residency cap 
positions in States with a shortage will help to ensure an adequate 
physician workforce. According to a study by the AAMC, 47 percent of 
physicians are practicing in the State in which they did their 
training. Florida's record of retention is even better than the 
national average. The same study shows that approximately 60 percent of 
physicians who trained in Florida stay in Florida to practice medicine 
after their residency.
  Today we are introducing the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction 
Act of 2007 to enhance America's health care infrastructure by 
expanding the number of resident physician training positions in States 
with a shortage of resident physicians. Specifically, the bill 
authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to increase 
the cap on the number of Medicare-supported residency training 
positions at teaching hospitals in States where there are shortages of 
resident physicians. A State is considered to have a shortage of 
resident physicians if its ratio of resident physicians per 100,000 
population is below the national median level. Under our bill, teaching 
hospitals in approximately 24 States would be eligible for increases in 
their resident caps.
  We believe this legislation is a critical first step towards ensuring 
an adequate supply of physicians in our health care system. We urge all 
of our colleagues, from both sides of the aisle, to join us in this 
effort.
  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. 588

       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 ``Resident Physician Shortage 
     Reduction Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. INCREASING THE MEDICARE CAPS ON GRADUATE MEDICAL 
                   EDUCATION POSITIONS FOR STATES WITH A SHORTAGE 
                   OF RESIDENTS.

       (a) Direct Graduate Medical Education.--Section 
     1886(h)(4)(F) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395ww(h)(4)(F)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by inserting ``clause (iii) and'' after 
     ``subject to''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) Increase in caps on graduate medical education 
     positions for states with a shortage of residents.--

       ``(I) In general.--For cost reporting periods beginning on 
     or after the date that is 16 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 
     2007, the Secretary shall increase the otherwise applicable 
     limit on the total number of full-time equivalent residents 
     in the field of allopathic or osteopathic medicine determined 
     under clause (i) with respect to a qualifying hospital in an 
     eligible State by an amount determined appropriate by the 
     Secretary. Such increase shall be phased-in over

[[Page S1969]]

     a period of 5 cost reporting periods beginning with the first 
     cost reporting period in which the increase is applied under 
     the previous sentence to the hospital. For each eligible 
     State the aggregate number of such increases shall be--

       ``(aa) not less than 15; and
       ``(bb) not greater than the State resident cap increase.

       ``(II) Qualifying hospital.--In this clause, the term 
     `qualifying hospital' means a hospital located in an eligible 
     State that the Secretary determines should receive an 
     increase under this clause in the otherwise applicable limit 
     on the total number of full-time equivalent residents in the 
     field of allopathic or osteopathic medicine.
       ``(III) Eligible state.--In this clause, the term `eligible 
     State' means a State for which the National median medical 
     resident ratio exceeds the State medical resident ratio.
       ``(IV) State resident cap increase.--In this clause, the 
     term `State resident cap increase' means, with respect to a 
     State, \1/4\ of the product of--

       ``(aa) the difference between the National median medical 
     resident ratio and the State medical resident ratio; and
       ``(bb) the State population (as determined for purposes of 
     subclause (VI)).

       ``(V) National median medical resident ratio.--In this 
     clause, the term `National median medical resident ratio' 
     means the median of all State medical resident ratios.
       ``(VI) State medical resident ratio.--In this clause, the 
     term `State medical resident ratio' means, with respect to 
     any State, the ratio of full-time equivalent residents in the 
     State in approved medical residency training programs as of 
     the date of enactment of the Resident Physician Shortage 
     Reduction Act of 2007 to the population of the State as of 
     such date, as determined by the Secretary.
       ``(VII) State.--In this clause, the term `State' means a 
     State and the District of Columbia.
       ``(VIII) Considerations in determining resident cap 
     increases.--In determining whether a hospital is a qualifying 
     hospital, and how much of an increase in the resident cap a 
     qualifying hospital shall receive under subclause (I), the 
     Secretary shall take into consideration the demonstrated 
     likelihood of the hospital filling resident positions that 
     would be made available as a result of such increase within 
     the first 3 cost reporting periods beginning on or after the 
     date that is 16 months after the date of enactment of the 
     Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act of 2007. The 
     Secretary shall also take into consideration whether the new 
     resident positions will be in primary care, preventive 
     medicine, or geriatrics programs.''.

       (b) Indirect Medical Education.--Section 1886(d)(5)(B) of 
     the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(d)(5)(B)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(x) Clause (iii) of subsection (h)(4)(F) shall apply to 
     clause (v) in the same manner and for the same period as such 
     clause (iii) applies to clause (i) of such subsection.''.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today dealing with 
resident physician shortages. This bill will expand the number of 
Medicare-supported physician residency training positions in States all 
over the country which face a shortage of doctors.
  This legislation is important because we know that the cities where 
doctors are trained are often the cities where they stay. For example, 
Nevada currently has 199 physicians in training and will be eligible 
for an additional 93 positions under this bill.
  As Nevada continues to grow, so do our health needs. The two bills I 
am introducing today will help ensure communities across Nevada that 
they have the doctors they need and the quality of care they deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALLARD:
  S. 589. A bill to provide for the transfer of certain Federal 
property to the United States Paralympics, Incorporated, a subsidiary 
of the United States Olympic Committee; to the Committee on Environment 
and Public Works.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce important 
legislation in support of America's Paralympic programs.
  The Paralympics are an important facet of our modern Olympic 
tradition and serve as an integral part of the rehabilitation of the 
mind, body, and soul. Training programs provided by Paralympic 
organizations enable disabled athletes to overcome obstacles on and off 
the field. Through training, performance, and competition, these 
athletes regain independence and renew their spirit.
  The roots of the Paralympic movement originally stem from disabled 
veteran's returning from war. After World War II, British soldiers 
began participating in Paralympic games. These games provided a way for 
disabled soldiers to compete competitively in athletics. This practice 
quickly spread to the United States, and this country is now leading 
the way in advancing the movement. Today thousands of athletes with 
physical disabilities compete internationally, proudly representing 
their countries.
  Tremendous advancements in modern medicine and the adaptation of 
athletic equipment have allowed Para-lympic athletes to physically 
compete in a variety of sports and live the Olympic dream. By 
continuing to support the development of the Para-lympic movement at 
all levels, as this bill does, we are able to take advantage of these 
numerous scientific and medical advancements to truly improve quality 
of life for our wounded veterans.
  Today I am introducing legislation to facilitate the transfer of 
unused Federal property in Colorado Springs, CO, to the United States 
Olympic Committee and specifically Paralympics Incorporated. The 
transfer of this property allows the current United States Olympic 
Committee complex in Colorado Springs to expand and provides the U.S. 
Paralympic Team with further room to grow their programs.
  To a large degree, this expansion will afford greater opportunities 
to Para-lympics athletes, especially our Nation's military veterans.
  Colorado Springs and the Pikes Peak region are unique. Home to a 
robust veteran's population, this region also serves as the national 
headquarters of the Unites States Olympic Committee. This makes the 
area a natural fit for championing and advancing the Paralympic 
movement.
  Proponents for the disabled estimate that approximately 10 percent of 
the more than 500-person U.S. team to the Paralympics in 2012 will be 
comprised of veteran's of the global war on terrorism. This is a 
tremendous increase considering there were no war veterans 
participating in either the 2004 or 2006 games.
  Providing for the transfer of this property will give the United 
States Olympic Commitee the necessary facilities to work with local and 
national veteran's service organizations, the Department of Defense, as 
well as the Department of Veterans Affairs in order to allow for 
greater opportunities for disabled veterans to participate in the 
Paralympics, particularly those returning home from war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  I am not alone. National and local organizations recognize the 
importance of these programs and vocally support my efforts, including: 
the Colorado American Legion, the Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce, 
the National Sports Center for the Disabled, and the Pikes Peak Chapter 
of Military Officers Association of America.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in cheering on the Olympic spirit that 
lives in all of us by supporting our Nation's disabled veterans and 
Para-lympic athletes.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the following letters in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  The Chamber,

                          Colorado Springs, CO, February 14, 2007.
     Hon. Wayne Allard,
     U.S. Senator, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Allard: We are writing to express our strong 
     support of your efforts to transfer the Federal Building at 
     1520 East Willamette in Colorado Springs to the United State 
     Paralympic Committee.
       As you know, The Greater Colorado Springs Chamber of 
     Commerce has an active and steadfast relationship with the 
     United States Olympic Committee. In addition, our membership 
     provides a strong support system to our military in the 
     region. We are most impressed with the USOC's Paralympics 
     Organization that provides such a valuable initiative to our 
     injured soldiers coming back from serving and protecting our 
     country.
       The stature and pride associated with The United States 
     Olympic Committee's presence in the Colorado Springs area has 
     always been an important part of our cultural and economic 
     significance. Combining that with the mission of helping our 
     soldiers recover and succeed in the Paralympics venue would 
     be another critical investment in our people and our region.
       We wholly and enthusiastically support your efforts to add 
     to our nation's viability in the Paralympics movement and to 
     increase our region's prominence in that movement. Thank you 
     for your vigorous dedication in moving this effort forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Will Temby,
                                          Chief Executive Officer.

[[Page S1970]]

     
                                  ____
                                            National Sports Center


                                             For the Disabled,

                                                 January 24, 2007.
     Hon. Wayne Allard,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Allard: On behalf of the National Sports 
     Center for the Disabled of Winter Park, Colorado, I would 
     like to thank you for introducing legislation to transfer 
     Federal property to the United States Paralympics, Inc. and 
     the United States Olympic Committee. This property will 
     significantly add to the U.S. Paralympics' ongoing efforts to 
     provide sport programs for individuals with disabilities.
       In recent years, the number of young men and women with 
     newly acquired disabilities from military service has 
     increased considerably. Learning to live with a disability is 
     an experience that many find difficult. Recognizing that 
     physical activity can play a tremendous role in encouraging 
     healthy and independent lives, the U.S. Paralympics has made 
     remarkable efforts to provide sport programs for such 
     individuals. As chief executive officer for the National 
     Sport Center for the Disabled, I have witnessed firsthand the 
     benefits of physical activity on the lives of the disabled. 
     It is clear that sport programs have tremendous therapeutic 
     value and encourage healthy, independent lives.
       As military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, 
     the need for such programs is greater than ever. This 
     property in Colorado Springs, Colorado will greatly enhance 
     the U.S. Paralympics' ability to continue sport training 
     programs for our soldiers with newly acquired disabilities as 
     they return home and begin the rehabilitation process.
       I ardently support your legislation to transfer Federal 
     property to the U.S. Olympic Committee and U.S. Paralympics 
     for sport programs for the disabled, and I thank you for 
     recognizing this need as so many active duty and retired 
     military personnel begin to adjust to life with a disability.
           Sincerely,
     Craig Pollitt, President/Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____

                                               Pikes Peak Chapter,


                          Military Officers Assoc. of America,

                           Colorado Springs, CO, January 24, 2007.
     U.S. Olympic Committee,
     Olympic Plaza,
     Colorado Springs, CO.
       Dear U.S. Olympic Committee: The members of the Pikes Peak 
     Chapter of the Military Officers Association of America would 
     like to express our strongest support for your efforts to 
     transfer the Federal Property near the U.S. Olympic Training 
     Center to your Olympic Committee. Understanding that U.S. 
     Olympic Committee will use this property in the training of 
     United States Paralympics, we see this as a wonderful 
     opportunity to help athletes with physical disabilities. As 
     many veterans take part in this training and competition and 
     it adds so much to their lives, we strongly urge the Olympic 
     Committee to pursue the acquisition of this property for the 
     Paralympics.
       Feel free to contact me at 719-590-9522 for further 
     details.
           Sincerely,

                                          Thomas M. Daschbach,

                                               Colonel USAF (Ret),
                                    President, Pikes Peak Chapter.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Salazar, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Menendez, 
        Mr. Lugar, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Allard, Mr. Wyden, Mr. 
        Lieberman, Mr. Lautenberg, Ms. Cantwell, and Ms. Landrieu):
  S. 590. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the investment tax credit with respect to solar energy property and 
qualified fuel cell property, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Finance.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to 
spur investment in and deployment of fuel cells and solar energy 
systems. I am joined today by my colleague, Senator Salazar, and eleven 
other Senators in introducing this important bill to encourage the 
development if these clean energy facilities.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created new commercial and residential 
investment tax credits that have helped stimulate market growth for 
these innovative technologies. Those tax credits, which were extended 
in 2006, are set to expire at the end of 2008. However, in order to 
drive down future production costs and encourage the development of 
these facilities, this bill provides for an eight-year extension of the 
investment tax credits for solar and fuel cell facilities. It also 
provides for the accelerated depreciation of commercial solar and fuel 
cell projects.
  The long-term extension is needed within these industries because 
these emerging energy technologies have longer planning horizons than 
traditional power plants. A long-term extension will also help 
developers secure the financing for these facilities.
  There are numerous benefits of extending these investment tax 
credits. It is estimated that an eight-year extension of the tax 
credits will displace over 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 
save consumers over $32 billion. An estimated 70,000 new jobs will be 
created in the solar and fuel cell industries and over $50 billion in 
economic investment will be made in these industries. In addition, 
distributed generation facilities can serve remote sites and help 
address transmission congestion issues.
  Home-grown energy technologies and sources help reduce our dependence 
on foreign sources of energy. Moreover, both solar equipment and fuel 
cells provide zero emissions energy. I would urge my colleagues to join 
us in providing America's entrepreneurs and households with these 
important tax incentives. Together, we can reduce our dependence on 
fossil fuels and restore our nation's leading role in these important 
industries.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. 
        Lincoln, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 591. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to adjust for 
inflation the allowable amounts of financial resources of eligible 
households and to exclude from countable financial resources certain 
retirement and education accounts; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Food 
Stamp Savings and Investment Act of 2007, a bill that would improve the 
food stamp program which is administered by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. For fiscal year 2005, the food stamp program touched an 
average of over 25 million people in this country every month.
  Our nutrition assistance programs, anchored by the food stamp 
program, play a key role in ensuring that needy Americans have access 
to the food they need to lead healthy, productive lives. I know from 
the school teachers in my family the importance of good nutrition, 
especially for our children's development. Moreover, the food for 
nutrition programs comes from U.S. farmers which helps agriculture. 
Finally, food assistance programs are an important part of this 
country's safety net. Not long ago, the Nation witnessed the food stamp 
program's effective emergency response to evacuees from hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita. The U.S. food assistance programs are good for 
families, good for farmers and good for America.
  The food stamp program not only helps by providing food and emergency 
aid, it helps America's needy families on their path to independence 
and self-sufficiency. The goals of the 1996 welfare reform were spelled 
out in the title, to increase ``personal responsibility and work 
opportunity.'' In essence, Congress asked our nation's families on 
welfare to take personal responsibility for themselves and join the 
workforce, and many of those families did. In the ten years since 
welfare reform was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton, 
fewer families receive cash welfare, and more welfare families are 
working. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 1996 to 
2005, the number of food stamp households with children who received 
cash welfare payments decreased by 57 percent, and the number who 
reported earned income increased 41 percent. Many families have 
transitioned from welfare to work, and the Food Stamp program should do 
more to encourage this continuing transition.
  States have done a great job addressing food stamp error rates. From 
fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2005, while average monthly 
participation increased to a near historical high of almost 26 million 
people, the combined error rates of over payments and under payments 
fell 34 percent to a historical low of 5.84 percent.
  In the 2002 farm bill, Congress gave States many options to 
administer the food stamp program easier. Most States have taken 
advantage of these options and the program serves both taxpayers and 
recipients better today than in the past. However, there is room to 
improve. For many working families with low income, there are some 
aspects of the food stamp program that may reduce their ability to 
escape the cycle of poverty. For example, food stamp asset rules 
conflict

[[Page S1971]]

with families' ability to save for their future. The asset limit of 
$2,000 for liquid assets for most food stamp recipients has not changed 
for more than 20 years. When indexed for inflation, the asset limit 
would be almost $4,000 today. This bill would index the asset limit to 
inflation. A higher asset limit should help families build up savings 
in order to achieve financial independence and prepare for a rainy day 
or get an education and eventually end their need to receive food 
stamps.
  In addition, food stamp rules discourage working families from 
utilizing all the financial investment tools encouraged by the tax code 
for working Americans. This bill would exempt savings plans for 
retirement and education from being counted toward the asset when 
determining eligibility, provisions included in the Bush 
Administration's farm bill proposal.
  The core ideas underlying this bill enjoy broad support across the 
political spectrum. Examples of organizations that have voiced support 
for reforming asset limits in order to encourage savings include: The 
Heritage Foundation; the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities; the 
New America Foundation; the Corporation for Enterprise Development; 
and, the Center for Law and Social Policy.
  Reforming food stamp asset limits has the potential to help needy 
families break the cycle of poverty and achieve long-term financial 
independence. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my friend and 
colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, as a cosponsor of 
legislation to provide some needed improvements to the Food Stamp 
Program's eligibility rules.
  Senator Chambliss' legislation, the Food Stamp Personal Savings and 
Investment Act of 2007, would exempt retirement accounts and 
educational savings accounts from the current asset limits test in the 
Food Stamp Program. Additionally, this bill would index the current 
asset limit to inflation.
  For most households, the current asset limit in the Food Stamp 
Program is $2000; $3000 for households with an elderly individual or an 
individual with a disability. This limit has not been raised in over 20 
years, making it inconsistent with the economic challenges faced by 
today's low-income working families in America.
  In addition, current Food Stamp Program resources rules are 
inconsistent. Many types of retirement accounts and all educational 
savings accounts are counted against the asset limit, meaning that a 
working mother who has recently become unemployed but managed to save 
$2500 for her daughter's college education is actually ineligible for 
food stamps. This forces otherwise eligible households to have to 
choose between liquidating such savings, which in many cases are also 
subject to a financial penalty, or going without needed food 
assistance.
  It is clear that current Food Stamp Program rules actually discourage 
people from planning responsibly for their futures and deny them a 
helping hand at a time when they need it most. It makes no sense for 
the government to force families that are suffering through periods of 
unemployment to spend down the savings which represent their only 
source of security in times of hardship. In essence we require people 
to trade-off their minimal savings for meager food stamp benefits that 
equal an average of one dollar per meal per person.
  If our true goal is to provide low-income families with a hand up--to 
help make a better life for themselves and their children--then we must 
enact policies that actually encourage them to build the resources that 
are necessary to get out of poverty and remove the barriers to saving 
that exist in current law. Exempting retirement and educational savings 
accounts from the Food Stamp Program's asset limits test will help do 
that.
  Similarly, adjusting the current asset limit so that it rises with 
inflation will provide a more reasonable, less-restrictive threshold 
that, though modest, will at least prevent further erosion in the 
current asset limits. I'm hopeful that we can do more than just 
indexing the current limit, which is too restrictive. I hope that we 
can first increase the asset limits and then index them annually to 
inflation. But Senator Chambliss' bill is a good start, and I commend 
him for seeking to address this problem.
  Taken together, these are common sense changes that are needed 
throughout our federal anti-poverty programs to allow low-income 
Americans who are currently discouraged from saving to invest in their 
futures. The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry obviously 
has no jurisdiction over other anti-poverty programs, but we can start 
by removing the unrealistic and damaging limits that currently exist 
within the Food Stamp Program.
  I should also make clear that this is not the only change needed to 
improve upon the Food Stamp Program. We clearly must do more to help 
those who suffer from food insecurity in this country, and there are a 
number of other improvements that we should make to our federal food 
assistance programs to help low-income families put food on their 
tables.
  This legislation is a good start to the larger objective of 
simplifying and strengthening our food assistance programs to make them 
more responsive and relevant to helping meet the needs of today's low-
income American families. I commend Senator Chambliss for introducing 
this bill, am happy to cosponsor it and look forward to continuing to 
work with him to promote economic and food security and stability for 
low-income Americans and families.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS:
  S. 592. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
for a manufacturer's jobs credit, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, 
the ``Growing Our Manufacturing Employment Act, or ``GoME,'' which is 
aimed at reinvigorating the manufacturing sector, boosting the level of 
domestic manufacturing, and preventing the further loss of 
manufacturing jobs.
  Few issues are as important to the American people than the 
availability of good jobs in their communities. Manufacturing jobs have 
long provided quality employment for generations of Americans. But in 
recent years, employment in the manufacturing sector has dropped, and 
over 3 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since the year 2000.
  Few States have been hit harder by the loss of manufacturing jobs 
than my home State of Maine. According to the National Association of 
Manufacturers, Maine has lost 22,000 manufacturing jobs--nearly 28 
percent of our total--since the beginning of this decade. These jobs 
once provided lifelong employment to Mainers in towns like Millinocket, 
Wilton, Waterville, Fort Kent, Dexter, Westbrook, and Sanford. Here is 
but one example of the tragic results of this ongoing trend, from my 
home State of Maine: For 60 years, Moosehead Manufacturing produced 
furniture of the highest quality--beautiful designs and quality 
materials combined with expert craftsmanship. Last week, Moosehead 
closed its doors. More than 120 skilled workers have lost their jobs. A 
traditional Maine business, built from the ground up by a Maine family, 
is gone.
  Why are American manufacturing jobs disappearing? Three years ago, 
the National Association of Manufacturers released a study showing that 
American manufacturers face ``structural costs'' that makes it 22 
percent more expensive to manufacture goods here than overseas. Last 
fall, NAM updated this study, and found that these costs are 
escalating, with American manufacturers now facing a cost differential 
31 percent higher than our nine leading trading partners.
  While it would surprise no one that U.S. manufacturers face a higher 
cost-of-doing business than manufacturers in countries like China and 
Mexico, it would be a mistake to assume that wage rates alone explain 
this difference. They do not. In fact, the productivity of American 
workers is unrivaled, allowing American workers to receive more value, 
in wages, for the goods they produce. As the original NAM study states, 
if wages were the only factor, then ``U.S. manufacturers would be much 
more dominant . . . in the global markets than the current trade 
situation suggests.''
  It is other ``structural costs'' that make it more expensive to 
manufacture goods in the U.S. relative to the

[[Page S1972]]

cost elsewhere. Indeed, the NAM study shows that most of the 
``structural costs'' facing American manufacturers are higher than 
those facing manufacturers in industrialized nations like Japan, 
Germany, and France. This fact illustrates the critical impact these 
high ``structural costs'' have on our ability to compete.
  In essence, these costs have the same effect as imposing a 31 percent 
additional tax on making goods here rather than overseas. To stay in 
business, American manufacturers must somehow do more with less, move 
operations overseas, or get out of manufacturing altogether. The end 
result is fewer jobs, a weaker economy, and a manufacturing sector in 
crisis.
  I believe a healthy manufacturing base is essential to our Nation's 
future. Not only is manufacturing a key source of skilled, high-paying 
jobs, but also it is crucial to our economic and national security that 
we have the ability to manufacture the goods we need right here in this 
country. For all these reasons, I am proposing the ``Growing Our 
Manufacturing Employment Act.''
  This bill would help to lessen the 31 percent cost differential that 
American manufacturers face by providing a variety of tax incentives. 
For example, a jobs tax credit would be provided to manufacturers that 
employ displaced workers who are receiving benefits under the Trade 
Adjustment Act, as well as those who are receiving benefits under the 
Alternative TAA program. That would help get those workers back to 
work. In Maine alone over 4,700 workers have been deemed eligible for 
benefits under TAA since November of 2002, and nationally, the number 
is nearly 600,000.
  The jobs credit I am proposing in this bill would only be available 
to manufacturers that increase their employment level. The availability 
of this credit would provide a powerful incentive to hire workers who 
are receiving benefits because they are displaced.
  This bill is designed to ensure that only companies that are helping 
to build America's manufacturing base obtain its benefits. It has both 
a carrot and a stick approach. Companies that move jobs offshore will 
see their benefits under this proposal reduced, and companies that 
chose to ``invert'' their corporate structure to avoid U.S. taxes will 
not be eligible for this credit at all.
  As important as it is to assist workers who are eligible for benefits 
under TAA and ATAA, however, this alone is not enough to address the 
crisis facing American manufacturers. That is why my bill also includes 
a 5-year extension of the research and development tax credit we passed 
last year. R&D is critical to our manufacturers, because it is the 
basis of the breakthroughs we need to keep our economy on the cutting 
edge. The credit also creates jobs--it can only be claimed on R&D 
performed in the United States, and 75 percent of each dollar claimed 
goes to cover salaries of employees engaged in R&D. But despite its 
importance, the R&D tax credit is scheduled to sunset at the end of 
this year. Extending this credit would be a powerful tool that will 
help manufacturers keep their operations in America, and help offset 
the cost disparity American manufacturers face.
  I am hopeful that, working together on this and other proposals, we 
can take the important steps needed to strengthen American 
manufacturers, preserve our manufacturing capacity, and most of all, 
help ensure that hard-working Americans have the jobs they need and 
deserve.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BURR (for himself, Mr. Reed, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
        Martinez, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Dole, and Ms. Collins):
  S. 593. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
grant program to provide supportive services in permanent supportive 
housing for chronically homeless individuals, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator 
Burr, to introduce the Services for Ending Long-Term Homelessness Act 
(SELHA).
  It is estimated that two to three million Americans experience a 
period of homelessness in a given year. While the majority of these 
individuals find themselves homeless for a brief period of time, a 
growing segment are experiencing prolonged periods of homelessness. 
Roughly 200,000 to 250,000 Americans fall under the category of 
chronically homeless.
  In March 2003, former Department of Health and Human Services 
Secretary Tommy Thompson issued a report that defined the issues and 
challenges facing the chronically homeless and developed a 
comprehensive approach to bringing the appropriate services and 
treatments to this population of individuals who typically fall outside 
of mainstream support programs.
  Similarly, the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health 
recommended the development of a comprehensive plan to facilitate 
access to permanent supportive housing for individuals and families who 
are chronically homeless. However, affordable housing, alone, is not 
enough for many chronically homeless to achieve stability. This 
population also needs flexible, mobile, and individualized support 
services to sustain them in housing.
  The legislation we are introducing today is critical to the 
development and implementation of more effective strategies to combat 
chronic homelessness through improved service delivery and coordination 
across Federal agencies serving this population. It directs the 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration to coordinate 
their efforts not only with the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development, but with other Federal departments as well as with various 
agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services that 
provide supportive services.
  Mr. President, SELHA is an important bipartisan measure designed to 
help improve coordination and ensure access to the range of supportive 
services that the growing number of chronically homeless Americans need 
to get back on their feet. Our bill brings together permanent 
supportive housing and services, the essential tools to enable these 
individuals to begin to take the steps necessary to become productive 
and active members of our communities again.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues toward expeditious 
passage of this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Sanders, and Ms. 
        Mikulski):
  S. 594. A bill to limit the use, sale, and transfer of cluster 
munitions; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise with Senator Leahy, Senator 
Sanders, and Senator Mikulski to introduce legislation to address the 
continuing threat posed by cluster bombs to innocent civilians around 
the world.
  Our legislation places common sense restrictions on the use of 
cluster bombs. It prevents any funds from being spent to use, sell or 
transfer cluster munitions: that have a failure rate of more than one 
percent; unless the rules of engagement or the agreement applicable to 
the sale or transfer of such cluster munitions specify that: the 
cluster munitions will only be used against clearly defined military 
targets and; will not be used where civilians are known to be present 
or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.
  The bill also requires the President to submit a report to the 
appropriate Congressional committees on the plan, including estimated 
costs, by either the United States Government or the government to 
which U.S. cluster bombs are sold or transferred to clean up unexploded 
cluster bombs.
  Finally, the bill includes a national security waiver that allows the 
President to waive the prohibition on the use, sale, or transfer of 
cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent, if he 
determines it is vital to protect the security of the United States.
  The human death toll and injury from these weapons are felt everyday. 
Innocent children think they are picking up a play toy in the field and 
suddenly their arm is blown off.
  Last November, the International Committee for the Red Cross called 
for a ban on the use of cluster bombs in highly populated areas. They 
joined other leading organizations who have also decried the 
indiscriminate use of these weapons: Amnesty International, Human 
Rights Watch, the Friends Committee on National Legislation,

[[Page S1973]]

Handicap International, and Landmine Action.
  Several countries, including Belgium, Germany, and Norway have either 
instituted a ban or a moratorium on the use and procurement of cluster 
bombs. More than 30 countries are actively calling for increased 
international controls on the weapon.
  And next week, Norway will host an international conference to 
explore the possibility of a international treaty to ban certain types 
of cluster munitions and provide support for the victims of the 
weapons.
  We need to adjust our policies for their use and can do so easily.
  Every year, hundreds of civilians are killed and many more are 
injured due to unexploded cluster bombs.
  From the fields of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, through the streets 
of Kosovo and Iraq, to the arid hills of Afghanistan and the 
playgrounds of Lebanon, these lethal relics of war continue to cripple 
life, hope, and peace.
  Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that 
contain up to hundreds of small submunitions, or individual 
``bomblets.''
  They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor 
covering over a half mile radius.
  Yet, in practice, they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians 
when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded 
bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate.
  The non-profit group Handicap International studied the effects of 
cluster bombs in 24 countries and regions, including Afghanistan, 
Chechnya, Laos, and Lebanon.
  Its report found that civilians make up 98 percent of those killed or 
injured by cluster bombs. 27 percent of the casualties are children.
  As the report shows, cluster bombs end up in streets and cities where 
men and women go to work and do their shopping.
  They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play.
  They end up in homes where families live.
  In some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, 
posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has 
ended.
  This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are 
no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball.
  Children, outside with their friends and relatives, come across these 
cluster bombs, pick them up because they look a ball, and start playing 
with them.
  A terrible result often follows as these stories demonstrate.
  On March 25, 2003 Abdallah Yaqoob was sleeping in his bed in his 
family's home in Basra, Iraq when he was hit by shrapnel from a cluster 
munition strike that hit his neighborhood.
  He lost his arm, and his abdomen was severely injured. Abdallah was 
hit by British L20A1/M85 munition.
  Falah Hassan, 13, was injured by an unexploded ground-launched 
submunition in Iraq on March 26, 2003.
  The explosion severed his right hand and spread shrapnel through his 
body. He lost his left index finger and soft tissue in his lower limbs. 
Source: Bonnie Docherty/Human Rights Watch.
  Hassan Hammade, a 13 year old Lebanese boy, lost four fingers and 
sustained injuries to his stomach and shoulder after he picked up an 
unexploded cluster bomb in front of an orange tree.
  He said, ``I started playing with it and it blew up. I didn't know it 
was a cluster bomb--it just looked like a burned out piece of metal.'' 
Source: Christian Science Monitor.
  All the children are too scared to go out now, we just play on the 
main roads or in our homes.
  These unexploded cluster bombs become, in essence, de facto 
landmines.
  Instead of targeting troop formations and enemy armor, unexploded 
bomblets target innocent civilians, seriously maiming or killing their 
victims.
  This runs counter to our values and counter to the laws of war.
  Make no mistake, the impact of unexploded cluster bombs on civilian 
populations has been devastating.
  In Laos alone there are between 9 and 27 million unexploded cluster 
bombs, leftovers from U.S. bombing campaigns in the 1960s and 1970s. 
Approximately 11,000 people, 30 percent of them children, have been 
killed or injured since the war ended. Source: International Committee 
for the Red Cross.
  In the first Gulf War, 61,000 cluster bombs were used containing 20 
million bomblets. Since 1991, unexploded bomblets have killed 1,600 
innocent men, women, and children and injured more than 2,500.
  In Afghanistan in 2001, 1,228 cluster bombs with 248,056 bomblets 
were used. Between October 2001 and November 2002, 127 civilians were 
killed by them, 70 percent of them under the age of 18.
  In Iraq in 2003, 13,000 cluster bombs with nearly 2 million bomblets 
were used. Combining the first and second Gulf Wars, the total number 
of unexploded bomblets in the region is approximately 1.2 million.
  An estimated 1,220 Kuwaitis and 400 Iraqi civilians have been killed 
since 1991. Source: Human Rights Watch.
  What gives rise, in part, to my bill are recent developments in 
Lebanon over alleged use of cluster bombs by Israel.
  It is estimated that Israel dropped 4 million bomblets in southern 
Lebanon and 1 million of these bomblets failed to explode.
  As Lebanese children and families have returned to their homes and 
begin to rebuild, they have been exposed to the danger of these 
unexploded bomblets lying in the rubble.
  22 people, including six children have been killed and 133, including 
47 children, injured.
  One United Nations official estimates that 40 percent of the cluster 
bombs launched by Israel in Southern Lebanon failed to explode.
  So far, more than 58,000 unexploded bomblets in Lebanon have been 
destroyed but it will take 12 to 15 months to complete the effort. 
Source: United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon.
  Looking at these figures it is clear that several countries are awash 
with unexploded bomblets.
  The number is indeed staggering and the consequences are real.
  Each death that results from an unexploded American bomblet weakens 
American diplomacy and American values.
  How are we supposed to win the hearts and minds of civilians in these 
countries when we leave behind such deadly weapons that 
indiscriminately kill boys and girls?
  How are we supposed to speed up reconstruction efforts--building 
homes, schools, hospitals, clinics, and ensuring electricity and water 
supplies--when populated areas are littered with these bombs?
  Simply put, unexploded cluster bombs fuel anger and resentment and 
make security, stabilization, and reconstruction efforts that much 
harder.
  And it is not just a humanitarian problem, it is a military problem.
  By showering targets with cluster bombs, we ensure that our troops 
will face thousands of unexploded bomblets as they move forward.
  This will force them to change course and slow the mission.
  During the Iraq war, U.S. troops would fire six rockets containing 
4,000 bomblets to eliminate one artillery piece in a civilian 
neighborhood. With a 16 percent dud rate, approximately 640 duds were 
left behind. Source: Human Rights Watch.
  As an August 2003 Wall Street Journal article noted: ``Unexploded 
bomblets render significant swaths of battlefield off-limits to 
advancing U.S. troops.''
  In fact, during the first Gulf War, unexploded cluster munitions 
killed 22 U.S. troops--6 percent of total U.S. fatalities--and injured 
58.
  Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen recognized the threat 
cluster bombs posed to civilians and U.S. troops alike and issued a 
memorandum which became known as the Cohen Policy.
  It stated that beginning in fiscal year 2005, all new cluster bomb 
would have a failure rate of less than one percent.
  This was an important step forward but we must remember that we still 
have 5.5 million cluster bombs in our arsenals containing 728.5 million 
bomblets. That is, we are still prepared to use an enormous amount of 
cluster bombs that have significant failure rates. That is 
unacceptable.
  Let me be clear. While this legislation prohibits the sale, use, or 
transfer of cluster bombs with a failure rate of more than one percent, 
it does include a national security waiver to allow the President to 
waive the restriction.

[[Page S1974]]

  Instead of exercising the waiver, I would hope that administration 
would work with Congress to extend the Cohen Policy to the entire U.S. 
cluster bomb arsenal.
  During the 1990s, a comprehensive pact was forged to protect 
civilians from land mines worldwide. The United States and the 
international community have since spent millions to remove mines in 
post-conflict regions.
  There is no question there should be a similar program for cluster 
bombs.
  Simply put, this legislation will save lives--civilians and soldiers 
alike--and will help save the reputation of the United States.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  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. 594

       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 ``Cluster Munitions Civilian 
     Protection Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON THE USE, SALE, OR TRANSFER OF CLUSTER 
                   MUNITIONS.

       No funds appropriated or otherwise available to any Federal 
     department or agency may be obligated or expended to use, 
     sell, or transfer any cluster munitions unless--
       (1) the submunitions of the cluster munitions have a 99 
     percent or higher functioning rate;
       (2) the policy applicable to the use, or the agreement 
     applicable to the sale or transfer, of such cluster munitions 
     specifies that the cluster munitions will only be used 
     against clearly defined military targets and will not be used 
     where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally 
     inhabited by civilians; and
       (3) not later than 30 days after such cluster munitions are 
     used, the President submits to the appropriate congressional 
     committees a plan, including estimated costs, for cleaning up 
     any such cluster munitions and submunitions which fail to 
     explode and continue to pose a hazard to civilians that is 
     prepared, as applicable--
       (A) by the head of such Federal department or agency in the 
     event such cluster munitions are to be used by the United 
     States Government; or
       (B) by the government of the country to which the United 
     States Government sold or transferred such cluster munitions.

     SEC. 3. PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER.

       The President may waive the requirement under section 2(1) 
     if, prior to the use, sale, or transfer of cluster munitions, 
     the President--
       (1) certifies that it is vital to protect the security of 
     the United States; and
       (2) not later than 30 days after making such certification, 
     submits to the appropriate congressional committees a report, 
     in classified form if necessary, describing in detail--
       (A) the steps that will be taken to protect civilians; and
       (B) the failure rate of the cluster munitions that will be 
     used, sold, or transferred and whether such munitions are 
     fitted with self-destruct or self-neutralization devices.

     SEC. 4. APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES DEFINED.

       In this Act, the term ``appropriate congressional 
     committees'' means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am very pleased to cosponsor this 
legislation on cluster munitions with my friend from California, 
Senator Feinstein. I commend her for the determination she has shown to 
prevent future harm to innocent people from these weapons.
  The problem of cluster munitions, which overwhelmingly maim and kill 
civilians, has been known for many years. Perhaps the most egregious 
example is Laos, where millions of these tiny explosives were dropped 
by United States military aircraft during the Vietnam war. Over three 
decades later they continue to cause horrific casualties among local 
villagers and unsuspecting children.
  I have urged the Pentagon to address this problem for nearly a 
decade.
  While they have acknowledged the problem, they have not yet taken 
sufficient steps to solve it. We used large numbers of cluster 
munitions in the invasion of Iraq, including in densely inhabited, 
urban areas, and many civilians paid and continue to pay a terrible 
price.
  Israel used these weapons extensively in Lebanon, including cluster 
munitions supplied by the United States, and again it has been 
civilians who have suffered disproportionately.
  Cluster munitions, like any weapon, have military utility. They can 
be effective against armor or other military infrastructure. But they 
are, in effect, indiscriminate, because they are scattered by the 
thousands over wide areas.
  Many of them--between 1 and 40 percent depending on the type and the 
condition of the terrain--fail to explode on contact and remain on the 
surface of the ground as hazardous duds indefinitely, no different from 
landmines.
  The duds are exploded by whoever comes into contact with them. Often 
it is a child who thinks it is a toy. The consequences are disastrous--
lifelong disfigurement and disability, or death.
  No one suggests that it is possible to completely avoid civilian 
casualties in war. Innocent casualties are an inevitable, tragic 
consequence of all wars. But this legislation should not be necessary. 
Weapons that are so disproportionately hazardous to civilians should of 
course be subject to strict controls on their use.
  The Feinstein-Leahy bill does not prohibit the use or export of 
cluster munitions. Rather, it would set a standard for reliability that 
is the same as what the Pentagon now requires for new procurements of 
these weapons.
  The President may waive this requirement if he certifies that doing 
so is vital to protect the security of the United States, and he 
submits a report describing the steps that will be taken to protect 
civilians and the failure rate of the cluster munitions to be used or 
sold.
  Our bill, which is not aimed at any particular country because this 
is a global problem, would also require that cluster munitions be used 
only against military targets and not where civilians are known to be 
present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians.
  This is a moral issue and it is an issue of our own self-interest. 
Using or selling weapons that are so indiscriminate in their effect 
without strict controls on their use is immoral. It is immoral.
  Anyone who has seen the horrific consequences of children with an arm 
or a leg blown off, or a part of their face, or their lifeless body cut 
to pieces by shrapnel, knows that.
  It is also contrary to our own interest to be using or selling 
weapons which cause such appalling casualties of people who are not the 
enemy. It fuels anger and resentment we can ill afford among the very 
people whose support we need.
  Again, I am pleased to join with the Senator from California. This is 
a thoughtful, much needed response to a serious humanitarian problem.
  It is also timely because other governments, following the leadership 
of Norway, Austria and others, are meeting in Oslo later this month to 
begin discussions on an international treaty to curtail the use and 
export of cluster munitions that pose unacceptable risks to civilians.
  The United States should play a visible, constructive role in those 
negotiations and it is our hope that this legislation will contribute 
to that process.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Menendez):
  S. 595. A bill to amend the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986 to strike a provision relating to modifications in 
reporting frequency; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would preserve the public's right to know about toxic chemical 
releases and waste management where they live.
  The legislation would overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's 
recent action to undermine the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program--
which I helped create in 1986--by allowing facilities that release up 
to 2,000 pounds of a toxic chemical to simply provide notice of a 
chemical's presence at the facility, rather than disclose the actual 
amounts released to the land, air, and water. The 2,000 pounds standard 
represents a four-fold increase of the current reporting threshold. EPA 
finalized another change to the TRI program that will reduce the 
information available to the public regarding the waste management of 
some of the most toxic chemicals that accumulate

[[Page S1975]]

in the environment, including lead and mercury.
  These changes would eliminate detailed reporting for one or more 
chemicals at thousands of facilities in communities around the country, 
including hundreds of facilities in New Jersey, and could eliminate 
entirely the disclosure of the releases of more than a dozen 
potentially dangerous chemicals. According to the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO), citizens living in 75 U.S. counties could 
have no numerical TRI information about local toxic pollution under the 
changes made by EPA. Furthermore, GAO estimates that 3,565 facilities--
including 101 in New Jersey--would no longer have to report any 
quantitative information about their chemical releases and waste 
management practices to the TRI.
  The EPA had also proposed to require reports on chemical emissions 
only every other year, instead of the current annual requirement. Under 
that plan, communities would have no knowledge of what chemicals have 
been released into their neighborhoods, or how those wastes were 
otherwise managed every other year. Additionally, companies would have 
an incentive to concentrate their most egregious releases of toxic 
chemicals into the environment in years which are not reported. EPA 
withdrew this particular part of their proposal, but there is no 
guarantee that they will not pursue this avenue in the future.
  I strongly oppose all of these rule changes; and the legislation I am 
introducing will overturn the changes EPA has made, and prevent them 
from making the third change that they considered.
  I firmly believe that it is unacceptable for the EPA to reduce the 
amount of information available to the public about chemicals--
including mercury, lead benzene, chromium, and other carcinogens--
stored nearby or released into their community. When Congress passed 
the original Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 
1986, as a response to the 1984 Union Carbide chemical disaster in 
Bhopal, India, some accountability was finally established in the 
chemical industry. And now, the EPA has weakened the rules and reduced 
the amount of information available to the public on these critical 
issues. For instance, in my home State of New Jersey, a chemical 
facility that released 2,000 pounds of arsenic via air emissions in 
2003 would no longer be required to disclose this pollution to the 
general public. Fourteen facilities that released a combined 8,600 
pounds of carcinogenic styrene would no longer have to report these 
emissions in detail.
  While the EPA touts the benefits of its proposal as ``burden 
reduction'' for industry, I strongly believe that the benefit of 
annual, detailed reporting vastly outweighs any reduction in burden 
that will be provided to industry. In fact, according to GAO's 
estimates, the average cost savings for facilities no longer required 
to report their release of toxic chemicals or waste management 
practices would be approximately $2.46 per day.
  There are constructive ways to improve the TRI program, and lessen 
the burdens on industry, without reducing the amount of information 
available to the public. These include improving the system for 
electronic reporting, and offering technical assistance to help 
businesses comply with the requirements.
  The bill I introduce today, with Senator Boxer and Senator Menendez 
as original co-sponsors, would codify the previous requirement that 
facilities with chemical releases of more than 500 pounds of any 
standard TRI chemical must disclose the details of their releases. 
Releases in amounts less than 500 pounds could continue to use the less 
detailed reporting form. Second, it would codify the current 
prohibition on using the less detailed form for the most persistent 
chemicals, including lead and mercury--those the EPA has classified as 
``chemicals of special concern.'' Finally, it would prevent EPA from 
making the frequency of reporting less than every year.
  I would also like to thank my Congressional colleagues in the House 
of Representatives, Frank Pallone of New Jersey, and Hilda Solis of 
California, with whom I have been pleased to work on this issue. 
Representatives Pallone and Solis are introducing the companion of this 
bill in the House; I now look forward to continuing to work with them 
and my colleagues in the Senate to ensure its passage.
  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. 595

       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 ``Toxic Right-to-Know 
     Protection Act''.

     SEC. 2. MODIFICATIONS IN REPORTING FREQUENCY.

       (a) In General.--Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and 
     Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11023) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (i); and
       (2) by redesignating subsections (j) through (l) as 
     subsections (i) through (k), respectively.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Sections 322(h)(2) and 
     326(a)(1)(B)(iv) of the Emergency Planning and Community 
     Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11042(h)(2), 
     11046(a)(1)(B)(iv)) are amended by striking ``313(j)'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``313(i)''.

     SEC. 3. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       (1) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (referred to in this section as the ``Administrator'') 
     shall establish the eligibility threshold regarding the use 
     of a form A certification statement under the Toxics Release 
     Inventory Program established under the Emergency Planning 
     and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et 
     seq.) at not greater than 500 pounds for nonpersistent 
     bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals; and
       (2) the use of a form A certification statement described 
     in paragraph (1), or any equivalent successor to the 
     statement, shall be prohibited with respect to any chemical 
     identified by the Administrator as a chemical of special 
     concern under section 372.28 of title 40, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (or a successor regulation).
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Hutchison, Ms. Murkowski, 
        Mrs. Boxer, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Cantwell, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mr. Kyl, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Durbin, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Domenici, Mr. 
        Stevens, Mr. Warner, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Biden, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
        Graham, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Thomas, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Leahy, Mr. 
        Burr, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Sununu):
  S. 597. A bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer 
research for 2 years; to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President. I rise today with Senator Hutchison to 
introduce legislation to reauthorize the extraordinarily successful 
Breast Cancer Research Stamp for two additional years.
  Without Congressional action, this important stamp will expire on 
December 31 of this year.
  This stamp deserves to be extended as it has proven to be highly 
effective.
  Since 1998, over 747 million breast cancer research stamps have been 
sold--raising $53.76 million for breast cancer research.
  California continues to be one of the leading contributors, 
purchasing over 47 million stamps with $3.6 million going to research--
almost 15 percent of the nationwide contribution.
  Furthermore, in September 2005, the General Accounting Office (GAO) 
released a report showing that the Breast Cancer Research Stamp has 
been a success and an effective fund-raiser in the effort to increase 
funds to fight the disease.
  The report also indicated that ``grants funded by NIH and DOD using 
Breast Cancer Research Stamp proceeds have produced significant 
findings in breast cancer research.''
  The National Institutes for Health and the Department of Defense have 
received approximately $36.7 million and $15.7 million, respectively, 
putting these research dollars to good use by funding innovative 
advances in breast cancer research.
  For example, a 2002 Department of Defense Concept Award enabled 
researchers to develop Medical Hyperspectral Imaging (MHSI) technology. 
This method of imaging helps surgeons determine if they have removed 
all cancerous tissue during breast cancer surgery.

[[Page S1976]]

  Thanks to breakthroughs in cancer research, more and more people are 
becoming cancer survivors rather than cancer victims. Every dollar we 
continue to raise will help save lives.
  One cannot calculate in dollars and cents how the stamp has focused 
public awareness on this terrible disease and the need for additional 
research funding.
  There is still so much more to do because this disease has far 
reaching effects on our nation: breast cancer is the second most 
commonly diagnosed cancer among women after skin cancer. More than 
three million women are living with breast cancer in the U.S. today, 
one million of who have yet to be diagnosed. Though much less common, 
over 1,700 men were diagnosed with breast cancer last year.
  This legislations would: extend the authorization of the Breast 
Cancer Research stamp for two additional years--until December 31, 
2009; allow the stamp to continue to have a surcharge of up to 25 
percent above the value of a first-class stamp with the surplus 
revenues going to breast cancer research; not affect any other semi-
postal proposals under consideration by the U.S. Postal Service.
  I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Hutchison in passing this 
important legislation to extend the Breast Cancer Research Stamp for 
another two years.
  Until a cure is found, the money from the sale of this unique postal 
stamp will continue to focus public awareness on this devastating 
disease and provide hope to breast cancer survivors.
  We ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation 
directly follow this statement in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 597

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF POSTAGE STAMP FOR BREAST 
                   CANCER RESEARCH.

       Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2009''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself, Ms. Snowe, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Vitter, 
        and Mr. Lieberman):
  S. 598. A bill to require reporting regarding the disaster loan 
program of the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Small 
Business Disaster Loan Reporting Act of 2007,'' which will require the 
Small Business Administration to update its disaster response plan and 
to submit detailed disaster loan reports to the Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship Committee. This bill is a bipartisan effort, and I 
thank Ranking Member Snowe as well as Senators Landrieu, Vitter, and 
Lieberman for their efforts in bringing this bill together.
  In the months since Hurricane Katrina, Rita and Wilma, I have worked 
with other members of the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship to improve the SBA's disaster loan program. We have 
introduced numerous drafts of this legislation, and each time our 
reform proposals have been blocked by the administration. While we 
continue to work toward passing this comprehensive reforms bill, we 
need to address some of the provisions that will assist Congress in 
assessing how the SBA's disaster loan program is operating in the 
present.
  SBA Administrator Steve Preston appeared before the House Committee 
on Small Business this morning and admitted that although the SBA has 
implemented widespread reforms in its operational approach to 
processing and disbursing disaster loans, there is no plan on paper to 
speak of that can be provided to Congress. To provide disaster victims 
with a quick and effective response in the aftermath of future 
disasters, we must continue to evaluate the SBA's programs, building 
upon successes and making improvements when we identify agency flaws. 
It is imperative that the SBA review its disaster response plan in 
preparation for the 2007 hurricane season, and this bill requires the 
SBA to do so and to submit its changes to our Committee and the House 
Small Business Committee for review.
  Last February, while thousands of Gulf Coast hurricane victims sat 
waiting for promised disaster relief to arrive, the SBA nearly ran out 
of money twice for its Disaster Assistance program. It required two 
emergency acts of Congress to keep the program running. Despite knowing 
about these funding issues well in advance, the SBA chose not to 
disclose the problem to its authorizing Committee until just before the 
issue came to a head. With greater coordination and transparency, 
Congress can work with the SBA to ensure that this essential disaster 
response program does not run the risk of shutting down. This bill 
requires the SBA to provide the Committee with detailed monthly and 
daily reports to update us on the program's lending volumes as well as 
funding levels. It also requires the SBA to notify its oversight 
committees when it will be seeking supplemental funding. Making the 
disaster loan program transparent for our review is crucial in creating 
a system that provides timely and valuable assistance to victims of 
disasters, and this legislation will help to do that.
  The SBA's failure to act quickly and effectively in response to the 
devastation of the 2005 hurricanes was unacceptable, but as we have 
learned from the continuing devastation in those areas, long-term 
disaster assistance for our small businesses also requires attention to 
federal procurement requirements. Small businesses need to play a 
leading role in rebuilding these areas. This legislation requires the 
SBA to report to Congress the number of contracts awarded to small 
businesses following disaster declarations, because continued 
assistance and government contracts for small businesses in these areas 
help to empower entrepreneurs to make their homes and cities vibrant 
once again.
  This bill will improve the SBA disaster loan program in allowing 
better congressional oversight to ensure the agency is giving 
entrepreneurs the tools they need to make a difference in their 
communities after a disaster.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Vitter):
  S. 599. A bill to improve the disaster loan program of the Small 
Business Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce with Senator 
Landrieu and Senator Vitter the ``Private Disaster Loans Act of 2007.'' 
This legislation streamlines the current disaster loan program and 
allows private banks to make loans to disaster victims.
  As ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and 
Entrepreneurship, I am committed to providing the Small Business 
Administration, SBA, with the tools necessary to help small businesses 
and homeowners recover in the wake of a disaster. With the SBA at the 
forefront of disaster relief efforts, Congress must support the agency 
to ensure that this country's 25 million small businesses have a 
resource they can depend on when disaster strikes. It is essential that 
we create a program to utilize existing infrastructure and provide 
immediate, much-needed aid to disaster victims.
  I have made reforming and improving the disaster loan program a top 
priority. The legislation I am introducing today, the Private Disaster 
Loans Act of 2007, is designed to remedy some of the problems that 
prevented or delayed disaster victims from receiving immediate and 
necessary funding following the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes. Homeowners 
and businesses are the bedrock of communities across this Nation, and 
keeping them healthy, happy, and economically viable will enhance and 
improve the disaster recovery process. My bill is an important step in 
the right direction.
  The creation of private disaster loan program will give the SBA the 
opportunity to work with private banks to improve the lending process 
in the wake of another devastating disaster, as in the case of 
September 11 or the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes. Because these private 
disaster loans will be made by qualified private lenders, borrowers 
will have an efficient alternative for accessing disaster assistance 
instead of depending solely on the SBA.
  Under my proposal, the maximum PDL loan size will be $2 million, with 
a

[[Page S1977]]

maximum SBA guaranty of 85 percent, no matter the size of the loan. The 
maximum term will be 25 years if collateral is involved; otherwise, the 
maximum term for uncollateralized loans will be 15 years. These loans 
can be used for any purposes that are authorized under the standard SBA 
disaster loan program.
  There will be no SBA guaranty fee for PDLs. In addition, there will 
be a loan origination fee paid to lenders by the SBA using authorized 
funds appropriated for the standard disaster loan program.
  The size standard used to determine a borrower's eligibility for the 
PDL program will be the standard currently used in the 7(a) or 504 loan 
program. This will provide greater flexibility to the lenders and 
foster more incentive for use of the program.
  For documenting each loan, lenders would be allowed to use their own 
documents, subject to SBA approval, and would also be permitted to 
create an internet, or electronic, application process.
  As we learned all too well after the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes, it 
is critical for our Government agencies to be as prepared as possible 
when disaster strikes. As we move forward during the 110th Congress, I 
look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to get this 
vital legislation passed, and to support the SBA in its continuing 
mission to assist the country's small business community.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 599

       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 ``Private Disaster Loans Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. PRIVATE DISASTER LOANS.

       (a) In General.--Section 7 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) and (d) as subsections 
     (d) and (e), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
       ``(c) Private Disaster Loans.--
       ``(1) Definitions.--In this subsection--
       ``(A) the term `disaster area' means a county, parish, or 
     similar unit of general local government in which a disaster 
     was declared under subsection (b);
       ``(B) the term `eligible small business concern' means a 
     business concern that is--
       ``(i) a small business concern, as defined in this Act; or
       ``(ii) a small business concern, as defined in section 103 
     of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958; and
       ``(C) the term `qualified private lender' means any 
     privately-owned bank or other lending institution that the 
     Administrator determines meets the criteria established under 
     paragraph (9).
       ``(2) Authorization.--The Administrator may guarantee 
     timely payment of principal and interest, as scheduled on any 
     loan issued by a qualified private lender to an eligible 
     small business concern located in a disaster area.
       ``(3) Use of loans.--A loan guaranteed by the Administrator 
     under this subsection may be used for any purpose authorized 
     under subsection (b).
       ``(4) Online applications.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The Administrator may establish, 
     directly or through an agreement with another entity, an 
     online application process for loans guaranteed under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Other federal assistance.--The Administrator may 
     coordinate with the head of any other appropriate Federal 
     agency so that any application submitted through an online 
     application process established under this paragraph may be 
     considered for any other Federal assistance program for 
     disaster relief.
       ``(C) Consultation.--In establishing an online application 
     process under this paragraph, the Administrator shall consult 
     with appropriate persons from the public and private sectors, 
     including private lenders.
       ``(5) Maximum amounts.--
       ``(A) Guarantee percentage.--The Administrator may 
     guarantee not more than 85 percent of a loan under this 
     subsection.
       ``(B) Loan amounts.--The maximum amount of a loan 
     guaranteed under this subsection shall be $2,000,000.
       ``(6) Loan term.--The longest term of a loan for a loan 
     guaranteed under this subsection shall be--
       ``(A) 15 years for any loan that is issued without 
     collateral; and
       ``(B) 25 years for any loan that is issued with collateral.
       ``(7) Fees.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator may not collect a 
     guarantee fee under this subsection.
       ``(B) Origination fee.--The Administrator may pay a 
     qualified private lender an origination fee for a loan 
     guaranteed under this subsection in an amount agreed upon in 
     advance between the qualified private lender and the 
     Administrator.
       ``(8) Documentation.--A qualified private lender may use 
     its own loan documentation for a loan guaranteed by the 
     Administrator, to the extent authorized by the Administrator. 
     The ability of a lender to use its own loan documentation for 
     a loan offered under this subsection shall not be considered 
     part of the criteria for becoming a qualified private lender 
     under the regulations promulgated under paragraph (9).
       ``(9) Implementation regulations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of the Private Disaster Loans Act of 2007, the 
     Administrator shall issue final regulations establishing 
     permanent criteria for qualified private lenders.
       ``(B) Report to congress.--Not later than 6 months after 
     the date of enactment of the Private Disaster Loans Act of 
     2007, the Administrator shall submit a report on the progress 
     of the regulations required by subparagraph (A) to the 
     Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Small Business of the House of 
     Representatives.
       ``(10) Authorization of appropriations.--
       ``(A) In general.--Amounts necessary to carry out this 
     subsection shall be made available from amounts appropriated 
     to the Administration under subsection (b).
       ``(B) Authority to reduce interest rates.--Funds 
     appropriated to the Administration to carry out this 
     subsection, may be used by the Administrator, to the extent 
     available, to reduce the applicable rate of interest for a 
     loan guaranteed under this subsection by not more than 3 
     percentage points.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to disasters declared under section 7(b)(2) of 
     the Small Business Act (631 U.S.C. 636(b)(2)) before, on, or 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 3. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) in section 4(c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``7(c)(2)'' and inserting 
     ``7(d)(2)''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2)--
       (i) by striking ``7(c)(2)'' and inserting ``7(d)(2)''; and
       (ii) by striking ``7(e),''; and
       (2) in section 7(b), in the undesignated matter following 
     paragraph (3)--
       (A) by striking ``That the provisions of paragraph (1) of 
     subsection (c)'' and inserting ``That the provisions of 
     paragraph (1) of subsection (d)''; and
       (B) by striking ``Notwithstanding the provisions of any 
     other law the interest rate on the Administration's share of 
     any loan made under subsection (b) except as provided in 
     subsection (c),'' and inserting ``Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, and except as provided in subsection (d), 
     the interest rate on the Administration's share of any loan 
     made under subsection (b)''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Ms.  Collins, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Vitter, and Mr. Bingaman):
  S. 600. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to establish 
the School-Based Health Clinic program, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today, I am honored to introduce the School 
Based Health Clinic Act of 2007. I developed this legislation in 
partnership with parents and healthcare advocates, all of whom are 
affiliated with Oregon's vibrant school based health center network. 
This important legislation will create a federal authorization to 
support the work of school based health centers (SBHCs) across the 
Nation. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Dodd, 
Snowe, Collins, Kennedy, Vitter and Bingaman.
  Currently, there are approximately 1700 SBHCs operating across the 
country, and Oregon is home to 44 of them. These special health 
clinics--with the input of parents, school personnel, healthcare 
providers and other youth advocate--provide vital primary and mental 
healthcare services to all children, regardless of their income or 
insurance status. Communities around the country are beginning to 
realize the enormous benefits of SBHCs, not only to the health of 
children, but to the broader healthcare system. Study after study show 
that SBHCs can help curtail inappropriate emergency room use, reduce 
Medicaid expenditures and prevent costly hospitalizations. Findings 
such as these have convinced me that Congress should be supporting 
programs like SBHCs that provide convenient points of access to basic 
healthcare services.
  Along with Community Health Centers, SBHCs serve as an invaluable

[[Page S1978]]

component of the Nation's healthcare safety net. Sadly, more than nine 
million children in the U.S. still lack any form of health insurance 
coverage. As a consequence, they face enormous challenges in accessing 
primary, preventive and mental health services. Even those children who 
are fortunate to have consistent health coverage face access barriers, 
which may result in increased absences or undiagnosed health 
conditions. SBHCs help tear down those barriers so that all children--
regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status--have access to a 
comprehensive range of health services.
  What truly sets SBHCs apart is their unique model of delivering care. 
Working with parents, school personnel and other community based 
programs, they provide direct care in a manner that helps foster the 
development of positive behaviors and long-term healthy lifestyles. 
They also play an important role in helping students achieve their full 
academic potential. An Oregon survey found that 75 percent of SBHC 
users would have missed one or more classes if they had to seek 
treatment in a traditional care setting. Clearly, SBHCs play a vital 
role not only in keeping children healthy, but in supporting their 
long-term educational success. We cannot expect children to excel in 
the classroom if they are forced to miss school to seek treatment from 
a traditional healthcare provider.

  Despite the enormous value they add to our nation's educational and 
healthcare systems, SBHCs receive little to no federal support. Most of 
their funding comes from state and local resources, patient revenue and 
private contributions. However, as budgets tighten and deficits grow 
larger, SBHCs find themselves competing alongside other programs for 
limited public health dollars. Many have been forced to scale back 
services or close altogether.
  Some SBHCs have been fortunate to receive limited support through the 
Federal Community Health Center (CHC) program, if they are affiliated 
with or operated by a center. While this relationship has proven 
beneficial, over time it has placed an increasing demand on CHC's 
source of revenue and has limited the ability of SBHCs to cultivate the 
resources needed to expand into other vulnerable and underserved areas.
  To realize their full potential, the Federal Government needs to 
establish a separate authorization for SBHCs. Even a small amount of 
Federal support can serve as much needed seed money to attract funding 
from other sources. In Oregon, centers have been able to generate as 
much as $3 to $4 dollars in funding from other public and private 
sources with every $1 of State general revenue. This clearly 
underscores the value of the SBHC-model of service delivery to the 
government. My legislation is asking for only a $50 million annual 
appropriation to support the work of SBHCs--an investment that could 
lead to a return many times over.
  As Congress prepares to consider the reauthorization of the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program this year, my colleagues and I have 
turned our attention to finding innovative and effective ways we can 
support the health and well-being of our Nation's children. I am 
hopeful that along with that important piece of legislation, we also 
can generate the support to pass the School Based Health Clinics 
Establishment Act. I believe we must support a variety of means of 
healthcare access so that all children are able to receive the care 
they need to stay healthy and well-prepared to excel in their 
educational pursuits.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, Senator Smith and I are introducing 
the School-Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007. This 
legislation will assist in the operation of school-based health clinics 
(SBHCs) which provide comprehensive and accessible primary health care 
services to medically underserved youth.
  Why is this legislation needed? Let's look at the facts. We have more 
than eight million children in this country who have no health 
insurance. According to recent data released by the Department of 
Health and Human Services, between 2003-2005, the percentage of high 
school students who reported smoking cigarettes was around 23 percent. 
In 2005, 30 percent of students in grades 11-12 reported binge 
drinking, which is five or more alcoholic drinks in a row. Twenty-two 
percent of students in grades 11 and 12 reported using marijuana in the 
past month.
  In addition, the same Department of Health and Human Services report 
found that the United States spends more on health per capita than any 
other country. The report, ``Health, United States 2006,'' specifically 
stated that ``much of this spending is for care that controls or 
reduces the impact of chronic diseases and conditions affecting an 
aging population.'' Fewer dollars are spent on preventative care for 
our children.
  Another fact I would like to bring to your attention is one found in 
a document released today by the United Nations Children's Fund. The 
U.N. Children's Fund report found that the United States ranks last in 
child health and safety, with the highest rates of relative child 
poverty and teenage obesity.''
  The points I have just made should not only shock us, but should be a 
wake-up call to each member of this body and to the American people 
that we need to take action and we need to take it now.
  With the introduction of the School-Based Health Clinic Establishment 
Act of 2007, Senator Smith and I are seeking to change the data I have 
outlined. School-based health clinics, where available, have a 
demonstrated record of improving the health care of our nation's youth. 
A study by Johns Hopkins University found that SBHCs reduced 
inappropriate emergency room use and increased primary care 
utilization, which resulted in fewer hospitalizations for those who 
used SBHCs. SBHCs also save money. For example, the Emory University 
School of Public Health attributed a reduction in Medicaid expenditures 
related to inpatient care and emergency department registration to the 
use of SBHCs.
  In Connecticut, we have 73 school-based health clinics. The SBHCs 
have provided health care to many elementary, middle, and high school 
students who would not have access to care if SBHCs did not exist. The 
Connecticut clinics provide an array of services such as comprehensive 
physical and mental health assessments, dental care, asthma treatment, 
and conflict resolution.
  The bill we are introducing today will help enable school-based 
health clinics to continue providing these much needed services. 
Although these clinics function totally in accordance with state laws 
and regulations, the federal government needs to provide funding so 
these clinics can continue to be a key component of our health care 
delivery system.
  This year, we will be working on the reauthorization of the State 
Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The program was created to 
provide health care to millions of children who were previously 
uninsured. SCHIP is an outstanding program. I believe the ``School-
Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007'' would be a good 
complement to SCHIP.
  The School-Based Health Clinic Establishment Act of 2007 is an 
important step in making sure that the next time the United Nations 
Children's Fund issues their rankings on children's quality of life, 
that the United States is no longer listed in last place. I look 
forward to working with Sen. Smith and my colleagues to see that this 
legislation is not only passed by this body soon, but that it is signed 
into law.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAYH (for himself, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Obama, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
        Kerry, Mr. Carper, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Schumer, Ms. 
        Klobuchar, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Biden, Mr. Brown, Ms. Stabenow, 
        Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 601. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 
broker reporting of customer's basis in securities transactions, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, today Senator Tom Coburn, Representatives 
Rahm Emanuel and Walter Jones and I, in the House of Representatives, 
are re-introducing bipartisan legislation to close the capital gains 
tax gap. The legislation, entitled the Simplification Through 
Additional Reporting Tax

[[Page S1979]]

(START) Act of 2007, will require brokerage houses and mutual fund 
companies to track and report cost basis information to their customers 
and the IRS. In the Senate, the legislation has 15 original co-
sponsors: Senators Coburn, Biden, Brown, Carper, Clinton, Durbin, 
Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Obama, Klobuchar, 
Schumer, and Stabenow. The House version has seven co-sponsors. The 
legislation is based upon a recommendation made by the National 
Taxpayer Advocate, the organization created as part of the 1998 IRS 
Restructuring and Reform Act whose explicit purpose is to make 
recommendations to Congress to simplify the tax code.
  As you can see from the members that are supporting this proposal, 
addressing the issue of the tax gap is not a partisan issue. Taxpayers 
who pay the right amount each year should not be subsidizing those who 
don't. According to the National Taxpayer Advocate, Nina Olson, honest 
taxpayers are paying an additional $2700 in taxes to subsidize 
dishonest taxpayers.
  It is also an issue of fairness. Middle-class Americans cannot 
underpay their taxes because their employers submit wage information 
reports, called W-2s, to the IRS. If a factory worker in Kokomo, 
Indiana underreports his income, the IRS is going to know about it 
because his employer sent his wage report to the IRS. By contrast, 
taxpayers who rely on stocks and bonds for their income are on the 
honor system to report their income accurately because the IRS receives 
virtually no information on what taxpayers paid for their investment. A 
$17 billion capital gains tax gap is ample proof that there are some 
taxpayers that are doing some Enron accounting when it comes to paying 
their capital gains taxes.
  This is also an economic issue--we are failing to collect, at a 
minimum, $345 billion in taxes that are legally owed each year. In 
light of our economic challenges--a national debt approaching $9 
trillion, the eve of the Baby Boomer retirement only a year away--
Democrats and Republicans need to come together and address this issue 
as a first step toward solving our longer-term fiscal challenges. This 
bill is only a small part of the solution but hopefully this will pave 
the way for other practical solutions that not only close the tax gap 
but also simplify the tax code.
  The START Act of 2007 requires brokerage houses and mutual fund 
companies to track and report the purchase price of a security, plus 
any adjustments, to their customers and the IRS. This simple change 
will allow taxpayers to have accurate information regarding their 
investments, saving them considerable time and effort when they file 
their taxes and have to figure out how much they owe each year in 
capital gains taxes. For the average taxpayer with capital gains, 
simply filling out the capital gains tax form adds 12 hours to the tax 
return filing process--more than a full work day. According to a recent 
GAO report, over one-third of taxpayers with capital gains or losses 
are not paying the right amount in taxes.
  The problem involves people who are cheating the system and 
underpaying the amount of capital gains taxes that they owe, but also 
involves honest taxpayers who are simply overwhelmed by the complexity 
of the tax code and make mistakes. A principal reason for the 
complexity involved in paying capital gains taxes is the need to obtain 
what is called ``adjusted cost basis'' information, a technical term 
for the purchase price of an investment, plus any necessary changes. 
This bill closes the loophole that dishonest taxpayers are using, but 
also offers a hand to taxpayers who spend hours simply trying to fill 
out the capital gains portion of their tax return.
  The bill will also help the IRS enforce the law and close the capital 
gains loophole. For the first time, the IRS will have the ability to 
see both sides of the picture, the purchase price and the sell price of 
a security. For decades, the IRS has only had half the picture. The IRS 
receives information about the price of a security when it is sold, but 
doesn't receive any information about the purchase price of the 
security.
  This loophole has resulted in the Federal Government being short-
changed by $17 billion per year in capital gains taxes owed but not 
paid. With the passage of this bill, the capital gains reporting 
loophole will be eliminated.
  I first introduced this proposal in the 109th Congress and, 
unfortunately, no action was taken on the bill. However, over the 
course of the past year, this proposal gained significant momentum, in 
part due to work done by the non-partisan General Accountability Office 
(GAO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation. Both of these organizations 
evaluated this proposal and made a recommendation to Congress that it 
be adopted.
  There has also been significant activity in the Congress. Last year 
alone, Congress held 7 hearings on the tax gap and Sen. Coburn's 
Homeland Security subcommittee held one of those hearings that 
specifically focused on this proposal. During that hearing, IRS 
Commissioner Mark Everson recommended this approach. The proposal also 
has support from non-profit taxpayer groups, such as the Citizens for 
Tax Justice.
  In addition to the bipartisan support our bill enjoys in the House 
and Senate, last week President Bush included this proposal in his 
budget submission. With the introduction of the President's proposal, 
the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the 
preeminent association representing the securities and bond industry, 
publicly stated that the proposal was ``very constructive.''
  In conclusion, this should be an issue that honorable members from 
both sides of the aisle can agree needs to be addressed. Democrats and 
Republicans will fight endlessly about what tax rates should be, but I 
believe all members should agree on the principle that all taxpayers 
should pay what you owe. We should also all agree that we need to 
reduce our deficit, simplify the tax-filing process, and promote a fair 
and equitable tax system. The START Act of 2007 is intended to make 
progress on all of these goals. I hope it can start a civil 
conversation about ways to improve our tax system. I look forward to 
working with all interested parties to craft a workable proposal that 
provides some needed relief to our overburdened taxpayers.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of a bill I am 
proud to introduce today with Senators Bayh and Coburn to help close 
the tax gap by improving the reporting of capital gains income. This 
bill requires brokerage firms and mutual fund companies to track and 
report the adjusted cost basis of their clients' stock, bond, and 
mutual fund investments.
  This bill is a simple, commonsense solution to a serious problem. 
Many taxpayers have a hard enough time filing their taxes. One of the 
most complex parts of an individual's tax return is the schedule for 
capital gains income. And what makes capital gains particularly 
difficult is the challenge of figuring out the adjusted basis of a 
security that has been sold.
  Many taxpayers lack the proper records or knowledge to calculate 
adjusted basis for a stock that has split or been exchanged as part of 
a company's merger or acquisition. And right now, the IRS does not have 
the ability to monitor the accuracy of taxpayer calculations. As a 
result, there is a clear risk of error or fraud. In some cases, 
taxpayers may end up paying too much in taxes. More often, they report 
too little income and thus pay too little in taxes.
  In 2001, the IRS estimated that underreporting cost the Treasury $11 
billion annually. Today the loss is even greater.
  Because the IRS fails to collect these funds, the rest of us have to 
pay higher taxes than we should. Most people pay their taxes honestly 
and follow the law to the best of their ability. But a small number of 
tax frauds--who often owe great amounts of taxes--cheat the system. And 
it's hard now for the IRS to stop them.
  This bill makes it easier to stop these cases of fraud and it helps 
reduce the amount of Federal tax dollars owed that the IRS fails to 
collect each year. Brokerage firms and mutual fund companies will be 
required to keep track of a taxpayer's cost basis and to report that 
information to the IRS. This will make it easier for honest taxpayers 
to calculate their taxable capital gain, and harder for dishonest 
taxpayers to lie about it. Based on information from

[[Page S1980]]

the Taxpayer Advocate, reporting to the IRS can improve compliance of 
capital gains reporting from an estimated 50 percent today to 90 
percent.
  Fortunately, this new reporting requirement will not pose an undue 
burden to the financial firms affected. First, the firms will have 
plenty of time to put the necessary systems in place since the 
reporting requirement will not take effect until 2009, and then will 
only apply to securities acquired starting in 2009. Second, technology 
has made tracking by financial firms simple and efficient. More than 80 
percent of all retail accounts already subscribe to a national 
reporting service for transferring basis information at a nominal cost 
per account. Finally, in cases where it is impossible to track basis, 
the Treasury Secretary and the IRS may develop regulations to require 
alternative information.
  It is estimated that $345 billion of Federal taxes goes uncollected 
each year. This bill doesn't solve that full problem, but it is a step 
in the right direction. It reduces the Federal deficit without raising 
taxes or cutting spending. It simplifies the tax filing process and 
reduces the chance of error or fraud. It applies what we know about the 
clear benefits of automatic reporting to the IRS--which is required now 
for wage income--to capital gains income as well.
  This bill makes sense. It's good policy. And I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting it and in helping to improve our tax code.

                          ____________________