Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 35 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 35 (Thursday, March 1, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2490-S2515]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 720. A bill to amend title 4, United States Code, to authorize the
Governor of a State, territory, or possession of the United States to
order that the National flag be flown at half-staff in that State,
territory, or possession in the event of the death of a member of the
Armed Forces from that State, territory, or possession who dies while
serving on active duty; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every day across our Nation, families,
friends, and entire communities mourn the loss of fallen soldiers,
sailors, airmen and marines. Michigan has lost 130 heroes in the wars
in Iraq an Afghanistan. One of the most powerful ways we can honor
those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country is to fly
the flag they fought under at half-staff.
At times during the course of these wars, governors around the
country have issued proclamations for State agencies and residents to
lower our Nation's flag to honor fallen service members from their
States. Many Federal agencies in those States comply with such
proclamations, but some have not. To a family member, the effect can be
that the Federal Government appears not to be paying the proper respect
to their loved one.
Today, I am introducing legislation that would prevent this situation
by giving governors the explicit authority to order the Nation's flag
lowered to half staff when a member of the Armed Forces from their
State dies while serving on active duty. It would also require Federal
agencies in that State to lower their flags consistent with a
governors' proclamation. Congressman Bart Stupak is introducing
identical legis1ation in the House of Representatives.
One of my greatest honors as the chairman of the Senate Armed
Services Committee is to spend time with our troops, and they are as
courageous, honorable, and capable a fighting force as the world has
ever known. These men and women have made a commitment to protect our
Nation. We need to make an equally strong commitment to honor them when
they make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We owe our fallen
soldiers, their families, and their communities a unified showing of
respect.
______

By Mr. ENZI (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Craig, Mr.
Leahy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Feingold, Mrs. Feinstein, and
Mr. Bingaman):
S. 721. A bill to allow travel between the United States and Cuba; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Freedom
to Travel to Cuba Act with Senator Dorgan and a number of Senators.
This legislation addresses only the travel provisions of our Cuba
policy.
The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act is very straightforward. It states
that the President should not prohibit, either directly or indirectly,
travel to or from Cuba by United States citizens.
I have had the opportunity to watch what has happened with Cuba
through the years and I am reminded of something my dad used to say--if
you keep on doing what you have always been doing, you are going to
wind up getting what you already got. That has been the situation with
the United States policy on Cuba. We have been trying the same thing
for over 40 years, and our strategy has not worked. I am suggesting a
change to get more people in Cuba to increase the dialogue.
Most of us know that Fidel Castro's health is not good and that he
ceded power to his brother Raul last year. I have heard arguments that
now is not the time to change our policy toward Cuba, and that by
changing policy, we could strengthen Raul's grip on the nation. This is
the same argument we have been hearing for the last 40 years, simply a
new verse.
When we stop Cuban-Americans from bringing financial assistance to
their families in Cuba, end the people-to-people exchanges, and stop
the sale of agricultural and medicinal products to Cuba, we are not
hurting the Cuban government--we are hurting the Cuban people. We are
further diminishing their faith and trust in the United States and
reducing the strength of the ties that bind the people of our two
countries.
If we allow travel to Cuba, if we increase trade and dialogue, we
take away the Cuban government's ability to blame the hardships of the
Cuban people on the United States. In a very real sense, the more we
work to improve the lives of the Cuban people, the more we will reduce
the level and the tone of the rhetoric used against us by the Cuban
government.
It is time for a different policy--one that goes further than
embargoes and replaces a restrictive and confusing travel policy with a
new one that will more effectively help us to achieve our goal of
sharing democratic ideas with the people of Cuba.
The bill we are introducing today makes real change in our Cuba
travel policy toward that will lead to real change for the people of
Cuba. What better way to let the Cuban people know of our concern for
their plight than for them to hear it from their friends and extended
family from the United States. Let them hear it from the American
people who will go there. The people of this country are our best
ambassadors and we should let them show the people of Cuba what we as a
nation are all about. If we want to give the Cuban people real
knowledge of the truth about America, we need to have Americans go
there to share it.
Unilateral sanctions stop not just the flow of goods, but the flow of
ideas--ideas of freedom and democracy are the keys to positive change
in any nation. The rest of the world is not doing what we are doing.
Countries around the world are trading with Cuba, investing in Cuba,
and allowing their citizens to visit Cuba. China, Venezuela, and Iran
are becoming the largest investors on the island. These nations are in
a position to directly influence the future of Cuba. Americans are
nowhere to be found.
Keeping the door closed and yelling at the Castro government on the
other side does nothing to spread democracy and does nothing to help
the people of Cuba. Let us do something, let us open the door and talk
to the Cuban people. I encourage all of my colleagues to take a look at
this legislation and join me in this effort.
______

By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Kyl):

[[Page S2491]]

S. 722. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the
Secretary of Agriculture to jointly conduct a study of certain land
adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National Monument in the State of
Arizona; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by Senator Kyl
in reintroducing legislation to authorize a special resources and land
management study for lands adjacent to the Walnut Canyon National
Monument in Arizona. The study is intended to evaluate a range of
management options for public lands adjacent to the monument to ensure
adequate protection of the canyon's cultural and natural resources. A
similar bill was introduced last Congress and received a hearing in the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on
National Parks. The bill being introduced today reflects suggested
changes of that Subcommittee and includes language that met their
approval. I am grateful for the input of the members of the
Subcommittee and their staff.
For several years, local communities adjacent to the Walnut Canyon
National Monument have debated whether the land surrounding the
monument would be best protected from future development under
management of the U.S. Forest Service or the National Park Service. The
Coconino County Board and the Flagstaff City Council have passed
resolutions concluding that the preferred method to determine what is
best for the land surrounding Walnut Canyon National Monument is by
having a Federal study conducted. The recommendations from such a study
would help to resolve the question of future management and whether
expanding the monument's boundaries could complement current public and
multiple-use needs.
The legislation also would direct the Secretary of the Interior and
the Secretary of Agriculture to provide recommendations for management
options for maintenance of the public uses and protection of resources
of the study area.
This legislation would provide a mechanism for determining the
management options tor one of Arizona's high uses scenic areas and
protect the natural and cultural resources of this incredibly beautiful
monument. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator
McCain introducing the Walnut Canyon Study Act of 2007. I cosponsored
similar legislation in the last Congress. That legislation had a
favorable hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Unfortunately, we were unable to enact it before the Congress ended.
The bill is simple. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture and the
Secretary of the Interior, utilizing a third-party consultant, to
conduct jointly a study of approximately 31,000 acres surrounding
Walnut Canyon National Monument. The purpose of this study is to help
the land managers ascertain the best long-term management strategy for
these surrounding lands in order to protect the natural, cultural, and
recreational values. I want to emphasize that adding these acres to the
monument is not the end goal of this study.
As stated, the study area consists of approximately 31,000 acres.
Approximately 25,000 acres are currently managed by the Forest Service
through the Land Resource Management Plan for the Coconino National
Forest. The plan was amended in early 2003 with local input to close
the area to motorized access and remove the land encircling the
monument from consideration for sale or exchange. The plan, as amended,
is under revision. The remaining acres are comprised of State trust
land managed by the State Lands Department and the Walnut Canyon
National Monument itself, which is managed by the National Park
Service. A small number of acres, about 200, are private land. That
private land is already subject to the Coconino County and the
Flagstaff City Council-approved Flagstaff-area Regional Land Use and
Transportation Plan, RLUTP, which restricts development within the
study area.
This legislation is the product of extensive public input that
included State and local officials, Federal agencies, and local
citizens who use the land surrounding the monument. This public
participation highlighted the core of the debate: how can we best
protect the natural and cultural resources in the area while continuing
the multiple-use management in a way that has stability and permanence.
I hope that this independent study will help answer that important
question. I urge my colleagues to approve the bill at the earliest
possible date.
______

By Mr. LEVIN (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 725. A bill to amend the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention
and Control Act of 1990 to reauthorize and improve that Act; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today, my colleague from Maine, Senator
Collins and I are very pleased to introduce the National Aquatic
Invasive Species Act of 2007. This bill, which reauthorizes the
Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act, takes a
Comprehensive approach towards addressing aquatic nuisance species to
protect the Nation's aquatic ecosystems. Invasive species are not a new
problem for this country, but what is so important about this bill is
that it takes a comprehensive approach toward the problem of aquatic
invasive species rather than just focusing on species after they are
established and a nuisance. The bill deals with the prevention of new
introductions of species, the screening of live aquatic organisms
imported into the country, the rapid response to new invasions before
they become established, and the research to implement the provisions
of this bill.
More than 6,500 non-indigenous invasive species have been introduced
into the United States and have become established, self-sustaining
populations. These species--from microorganisms to mollusks, from
pathogens to plants, from insects to fish to animals--typically
encounter few, if any, natural enemies in their new environments and
often wreak havoc on native species. Aquatic nuisance species threaten
biodiversity nationwide, especially in the Great Lakes.
In fact, the aquatic nuisance species became a major issue for
Congress back the late eighties when the zebra mussel was released into
the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes still have zebra mussels, and now,
more than 20 States are fighting to control them. They have traveled
down the Mississippi River, then up the Arkansas River over to
Oklahoma, and zebra mussels have been found out even in Nevada and
California. From 1993 to 2003, rapidly multiplying zebra mussels caused
$3 billion in damage to the Great Lakes region. Industry and
municipalities spend millions to keep water pipes from becoming clogged
with zebra mussels. And that is just the economic impact that one
species has caused.
Zebra mussels were carried over from the Mediterranean to the Great
Lakes in the ballast tanks of ships. The leading pathway for aquatic
invasive species was and still is maritime commerce.
Most invasive species are contained in the water that ships use for
ballast to maintain trim and stability. There are over 180 aquatic
invasive species in the Great Lakes. Some of the more notorious aquatic
invaders such as the zebra mussel and round goby were introduced into
the Great Lakes when ships pulled into port and discharged their
ballast water. In addition to ballast water, aquatic invaders can also
attach themselves to ships' hulls and anchor chains.
Because of the impact that the zebra mussel had in the Great Lakes,
Congress passed legislation in 1990 and 1996 that has reduced, but not
eliminated, the threat of new invasions by requiring ballast water
management for ships entering the Great Lakes. Today, there is a
mandatory ballast water management program in the Great Lakes, and the
Coast Guard recently turned the voluntary ballast water exchange
reporting requirement into a mandatory ballast water exchange program
for all of our coasts. The current law requires that ships entering the
Great Lakes must exchange their ballast water, seal their ballast tanks
or use alternative treatment that is ``as effective as ballast water
exchange.'' Unfortunately, alternative treatments have not been fully
developed and widely tested on ships because the developers of ballast
technology do not know what standard

[[Page S2492]]

they are trying to achieve. This obstacle is serious because
ultimately, only on-board ballast water treatment will adequately
reduce the threat of new aquatic nuisance species being introduced
through ballast water.
Our bill addresses this problem by setting a ballast discharge
standard. After 2011, all ships that enter any U.S. port after
operating outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles will be
required to use a ballast water treatment technology that meets the
ballast technology standard. This standard is based on the standard
proposed by the International Maritime Organization but is more
protective of our waters by a factor of 100. The standard would ensure
that ships discharge water that has less than 1 living organism that is
greater than 50 micrometers per 10 cubic meters of water. If the Coast
Guard determines in 2010 that technology is not available that can meet
this standard, then the Coast Guard and EPA would establish a standard
for ballast water management based on the best performance available
that exceeds the international standard. Technology vendors and the
maritime industry will know what standard they should be striving to
achieve and when they will be expected to achieve it.
I understand that ballast water technologies are being researched,
and some are currently being tested on-board ships. The range of
technologies includes ultraviolet lights, filters, chemicals,
deoxygenation, ozone, and several others. Each of these technologies
has its own merits, and each has a different price tag attached to it.
This bill will not overburden the maritime industry with an expensive
requirement to install technology because the market for technology to
meet a domestic and an international standard is evolving into a
competitive market, and that competition will provide affordable
technology.
Technology will always be evolving, and we hope that affordable
technology will become available that completely eliminates the risk of
new introductions. Therefore, it is important that the Coast Guard
regularly review and revise the standard so that it reflects what the
best technology currently available is.
There are other important provisions of the bill that also address
prevention. For instance, the bill encourages the Coast Guard to
consult with Canada, Mexico, and other countries in developing
guidelines to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nuisance
species. The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force is also charged with
conducting a pathway analysis to identify other high risk pathways for
introduction of nuisance species and implement management strategies to
reduce those introductions. And this legislation, establishes a process
to screen live organisms entering the country for the first time for
non-research purposes.
Organisms believed to be invasive would be imported based on
conditions that prevent them from becoming a nuisance. Such a screening
process might have prevented such species as the Snakehead, which has
established itself in the Potomac River here in the DC area, from being
imported.
The third title of this bill addresses the early detection of new
invasions and the rapid response to invasions as well as the control of
aquatic nuisance species that do establish themselves. If fully funded,
this bill will provide a rapid response fund for states to implement
emergency strategies when outbreaks occur. The bill requires the Army
Corps of Engineers to construct and operate the Chicago Ship and
Sanitary Canal project which includes the construction of a second
dispersal barrier to keep species like the Asian carp from migrating up
the Mississippi through the Canal into the Great Lakes. Equally
important, this barrier will prevent the migration of invasive species
in the Great Lakes from proceeding into the Mississippi system.
Lastly, the bill authorizes additional research which will identify
threats and the tools to address those threats.
Though invasive species threaten the entire nation's aquatic
ecosystem, I am particularly concerned with the damage that invasive
species have done to the Great Lakes. There are now roughly 180
invasive species in the Great Lakes, and on average, a new species is
introduced every 8 months. Invasive species cause disruptions in the
food chain which is now causing the decline of certain fish. Invasive
species are believed to be the cause of a new dead zone in Lake Erie.
And invasive species compete with native species for habitat.
This bill addresses the ``NOBOB'' or No Ballast on Board problem
which is when ships report having no ballast when they enter the Great
Lakes. However, a layer of sediment and small bit of water that cannot
be pumped out is still in the ballast tanks. So when water is taken on-
board and then discharged all within the Great Lakes, a new species
that was still living in that small bit of sediment and water may be
introduced. By requiring that these ships immediately begin saltwater
flushing so that freshwater species cannot survive in the saltwater
being pumped through the ballast tank, this bill addresses a very
serious issue in the Great Lakes. In 2012, these NOBOB ships, like all
ships, will be required to install and use ballast technology.
All in all, the bill would cost about $150 million each year if
authorized funding were to be fully appropriated. This is a lot of
money, but it is a critical investment. As those of us from the Great
Lakes know, the economic damage that invasive species can cause is much
greater. The zebra mussel, which is just 1 of the 180 species that has
invaded the Great Lakes, has caused $3 billion in economic damage over
10 years. Imagine what the cost of zebra mussels is to all of the
states that are now dealing with them. Compared to the annual cost of
zebra mussels and the hundreds of other aquatic invasive species, the
cost of this bill is more than reasonable. Therefore, I urge my
colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work to move the bill
swiftly through the Senate.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, from Pickerel Pond to Lake Auburn, from
Sebago Lake to Bryant Pond, lakes and ponds in Maine are under attack.
Aquatic invasive species threaten Maine's drinking water systems,
recreation, wildlife habitat, lakefront real estate, and fisheries.
Plants, such as Variable Leaf Milfoil, are crowding out native species.
Invasive Asian shore crabs are taking over Southern New England's tidal
pools and have advanced well into Maine--to the potential detriment of
Maine's lobster and clam industries.
I rise today to join Senator Levin in introducing legislation to
address this problem. The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007
would create the most comprehensive nationwide approach to date for
combating alien species that invade our shores.
The stakes are high when invasive species are unintentionally
introduced into our Nation's waters. They endanger ecosystems, reduce
biodiversity, and threaten native species. They disrupt people's lives
and livelihoods by lowering property values, impairing commercial
fishing and aquaculture, degrading recreational experiences, and
damaging public water supplies.
In the 1950s, European Green Crabs swarmed the Maine coast and
literally ate the bottom out of Maine's soft-shell clam industry by the
1980s. Many clam diggers were forced to go after other fisheries or
find new vocations. In just one decade, this invader reduced the number
of clam diggers in Maine from nearly 5,000 in the 1940s to fewer than
1500 in the 1950s. European green crabs currently cost an estimated $44
million a year in damage and control efforts in the United States.
Past invasions forewarn of the long-term consequences to our
environment and communities unless we take steps to prevent new
invasions. It is too late to stop European green crabs from taking hold
on the East Coast, but we still have the opportunity to prevent many
other species from taking hold in Maine and the United States.
Senator Levin and I first introduced a version of this legislation in
late 2002. Unfortunately, in the subsequent years in which Congress has
failed to act on our legislation, a number of new invasive species have
taken hold in Maine. North America's most aggressive invasive species--
hydrilla--was found shortly after we first introduced our legislation.
This stubborn and fast-growing aquatic plant has taken hold in Pickerel
Pond in the Town of Limerick, ME. This plant is now found throughout
Pickerel Pond, where it diminishes recreational use for swimmers and
boaters.

[[Page S2493]]

Eurasian Milfoil is another invasive which has taken hold since our
legislation was first introduced. Maine was the last of the lower 48
States to be free of this stubborn and fast-growing invasive plant.
Eurasian Milfoil degrades water quality by displacing native plants,
fish and other aquatic species. The plant forms stems reaching up to 20
feet high that cause fouling problems for swimmers and boaters. In
total, there are now 27 documented cases of aquatic invasive species
infesting Maine's lakes and ponds.
When considering the impact of these invasive species, it is
important to note the tremendous value of our lakes and ponds. While
their contribution to our quality of life is priceless, their value to
our economy is more measurable. Maine's Great Ponds generate nearly 13
million recreational user days each year, lead to more than $1.2
billion in annual income for Maine residents, and support more than
50,000 jobs.
With so much at stake, Mainers are taking action to stop the spread
of invasive species into our State's waters. The State of Maine has
made it illegal to sell, possess, cultivate, import or introduce 11
invasive aquatic plants. Boaters participating in the Maine Lake and
River Protection Sticker program are providing needed funding to aid
efforts to prevent, detect and manage aquatic invasive plants.
Volunteers are participating in the Courtesy Boat Inspection program to
keep aquatic invasive plants out of Maine lakes. Before launch or after
removal, inspectors ask boaters for permission to inspect the boat,
trailer or other equipment for plants.
While I am proud of the actions that Maine and many other States are
taking to protect against invasive species, all too often their efforts
have not been enough. Protecting the integrity of our lakes, streams,
and coastlines from invading species cannot be accomplished by
individual states alone. We need a uniform, nationwide approach to deal
effectively with invasive species. The National Aquatic Invasive
Species Act of 2007 will help my State and States throughout the Nation
detect, prevent and respond to aquatic invasive species.
The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 would be the most
comprehensive effort ever undertaken to address the threat of invasive
species. By authorizing $150 million per year, this legislation would
open numerous new fronts in our war against invasive species. The bill
directs the Coast Guard to develop regulations that will end the easy
cruise of invasive species into US waters through the ballast water of
international ships, and would provide the Coast Guard with $6 million
per year to develop and implement these regulations.
The bill also would provide $30 million per year for a grant program
to assist State efforts to prevent the spread of invasive species. It
would provide additional funds for the Army Corps of Engineers and Fish
and Wildlife Service to contain and control invasive species. Finally,
the Levin-Collins bill would authorize $30 million annually for
research, education, and outreach.
The most effective means of stopping invading species is to attack
them before they attack us. We need an early alert, rapid response
system to combat invading species before they have a chance to take
hold. For the first time, this bill would establish a national
monitoring network to detect newly introduced species, while providing
$25 million to the Secretary of the Interior to create a rapid response
fund to help States and regions respond quickly once invasive species
have been detected. This bill is our best effort at preventing the next
wave of invasive species from taking hold and decimating industries and
destroying waterways in Maine and throughout the country.
One of the leading pathways for the introduction of aquatic organisms
to U.S. waters from abroad is through transoceanic vessels. Commercial
vessels fill and release ballast tanks with seawater as a means of
stabilization. The ballast water contains live organisms from plankton
to adult fish that are transported and released through this pathway.
Our legislation would require all ships, with limited exceptions, to
meet environmentally protective performance standards for ballast water
discharge by 2012. In addition, it would establish a mandatory ballast
water management program that includes invasive species management
plans, ballast management reporting requirements, and best management
practices for all ships in US waters.
The National Aquatic Invasive Species Act of 2007 offers a strong
framework to combat aquatic invasive species. I call on my colleagues
to help us enact this legislation in order to protect our waters,
ecosystems, and industries from destructive invasive species--before
even more of them take hold in our lakes and rivers and along our
coastlines.
______

By Mr. COCHRAN (for himself Mr. Dodd, Mr. Akaka, Ms. Collins, Mr.
Stevens, Mr. Lott, Mr. Smith, Mr. Alexander, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 727. A bill to improve and expand geographic literacy among
kindergarten through grade 12 students in the United States by
improving professional development programs for kindergarten through
grade 12 teachers offered through institutions of higher education; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Teaching
Geography is Fundamental Act. I am pleased to be joined by my friend
from Connecticut Mr. Dodd. The purpose of this bill is to improve
geographic literacy among K-12 students in the United States by
supporting professional development programs for their teachers that
are administered in institutions of higher education. The bill also
assists States in measuring the impact of education in geography.
Ensuring geographic literacy prepares students to be good citizens of
both our Nation and the world. Last May, John Fahey, President of the
National Geographic Society, stated that ``Geographic illiteracy
impacts our economic well-being, our relationships with other nations
and the environment, and isolates us from the world.'' When students
understand their own environment, they can better understand the
differences in other places, and the people who live in them. Knowledge
of the diverse cultures, environment, and distances between States and
countries helps our students to understand national and international
policies, economies, societies, and political structures on a more
global scale.
The 2005 publication, What Works in Geography, reported that
elementary school geography instruction significantly improves student
achievement and proved that the integration of geography into the
elementary school curriculum improves student literacy achievement an
average of 5 percent. That's the good news. However, the 2006 National
Geographic-Roper Global Geographic Literacy Survey shows that 69
percent of elementary school principals report a decrease in time spent
teaching geography and less than a quarter of our Nation's high school
students take a geography course in high school. This survey shows that
many of our high school graduates lack the basic skills to navigate our
international economy, policies and relationships.
To expect that Americans will be able to work successfully with the
other people in this world, we need to be able to communicate and
understand each other. It is a fact that we have a global marketplace,
and that will continue to be the case. We need to be preparing our
younger generation for global competition and ensuring that they have a
strong base of understanding to be able to succeed. A strong base of
geography knowledge improves those opportunities.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis announced yesterday that 27.9
percent of the U.S. GDP, that is $3.7 trillion, annually results from
international trade. According to the CIA World Factbook of 2005, U.S.
workers need geographic knowledge to compete in this global economy.
Geographic knowledge is increasingly needed for U.S. businesses in
international markets to understand such factors as physical distance,
time zones, language differences, and cultural diversity among project
teams.
In addition, geospatial technology is a new and emerging career
available to people with an extensive background in geography
education. Professionals in

[[Page S2494]]

geospatial technology are employed in Federal Government agencies, the
private sector and the non-profit sector, focusing on areas such as
agriculture, archeology, ecology, land appraisal, and urban planning
and development. In the United States, there are currently 175,000
individuals employed in the geospatial technology industry. It is
estimated that this industry is growing up to 14 percent per year and
it is projected to be a $5-6 billion industry by 2010. A strong
geography education system is a necessity for this industry's continued
advancement.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said, ``To solve most of the
major problems facing our country today, from wiping out terrorism, to
minimizing global environmental problems, to eliminating the scourge of
AIDS, will require every young person to learn more about other
regions, cultures, and languages.''
We need to do more to ensure that the teachers responsible for the
education of our students, from kindergarten through high school
graduation, are prepared and trained to teach these critical skills to
solve these problems. Over the last 15 years, the National Geographic
Society has awarded more than $100 million in grants to educators,
universities, geography alliances, and others for the purposes of
advancing and improving the teaching of geography. Their models are
successful and research shows that students who have benefitted from
this teaching outperform other students. State geography alliances
exist in 19 States, including Mississippi, endowed by grants from the
society. But, their efforts alone are not enough. The bill I am
introducing establishes a Federal commitment to enhance the education
of our teachers, focus on geography education research, and develop
reliable, advanced technology based classroom materials.
In my State of Mississippi, teachers and university professors are
making progress to increase geography education in the schools through
additional professional training. Based at the University of
Mississippi, over 300 geography teachers are members of the Mississippi
Geography Alliance. Two weeks ago, the Mississippi Geography Alliance
conducted a workshop for graduate and undergraduate students who are
preparing to be certified to teach elementary through high school-level
geography in our State. The workshop provided opportunities for model
teaching sessions and discussion of best practices in the classroom.
I hope the Senate will consider the seriousness of the need to invest
in geography and I invite other Senators to cosponsor the Teaching
Geography is Fundamental Act.
______

By Mr. DOMENICI:
S. 728. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out
restoration projects along the Middle Rio Grande; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a project of
great importance to my State and our environment--one that has been
discussed before on this floor when I helped unveil a vision that would
rehabilitate and restore New Mexico's Bosque. I return here today to
implement this vision that concerns this long neglected treasure of the
Southwest.
I would like to point out that this project passed through this body
in the last Congress. The project that I am proposing today was
contained in the 2005 Water Resources Development Act, which passed the
Senate on July 19, 2006. I hope that this important project will again
obtain the approval of the Senate.
The Albuquerque metropolitan area is the largest concentration of
people in New Mexico. It is also the home to the irreplaceable riparian
forest which runs through the heart of the city and surrounding towns
that is the Bosque. It is the largest continuous cottonwood forest in
the Southwest, and one of the last of its kind in the world.
Unfortunately, mismanagement, neglect, and the effects of upstream
development have severely degraded the Bosque. The list of its woes is
long: It has been overrun by non-native vegetation; graffiti and trash
mar locations along its length; the drought and build up of hazardous
fuel have contributed to fires. As a result, public access is
problematical and crucial habitat for scores of species is threatened.
Yet the Middle Rio Grande Bosque remains one of the most biologically
diverse ecosystems in the Southwest. My goal is to restore the Bosque
and create a space that is open and attractive to the public.
This is a grand undertaking to be sure; but I want to ensure that
this extraordinary corridor of the Southwestern desert is preserved for
generations to come--not only for generations of humans, but for the
diverse plant and animal species that reside in the Bosque as well.
The rehabilitation of this ecosystem leads to greater protection for
threatened and endangered species; it means more migratory birds,
healthier habitat for fish, and greater numbers of towering cottonwood
trees. This project can increase the quality of life for a city while
assuring the health and stability of an entire ecosystem. Where trash
is now strewn, paths and trails will run. Where jetty jacks and
discarded rubble lie, cottonwoods will grow. The dead trees and
underbrush that threaten devastating fire will be replaced by healthy
groves of trees. School children will be able to study and maybe catch
sight of a bald eagle. The chance to help build a dynamic public space
like this does not come around often, and I would like to see Congress
embrace that chance on this occasion.
Having grown up along the Rio Grande in Albuquerque, the Bosque is
something I treasure, and I lament the degradation that has occurred.
Because of this, I have been involved in Bosque restoration since 1991,
and I commend the efforts of groups like the Bosque Coalition for the
work they have done, and will continue to do, along the river. I
propose to build on their efforts with the legislation I am introducing
today.
I remain grateful to each of the parties who have been involved with
this idea since its inception. Each one contributes a very critical
component of the project. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District
(the ``MRGCD") owns the vital part of the Bosque which runs from the
National Hispanic Cultural Center north to the Paseo Del Norte Bridge.
The MRGCD has proven to be a valuable local partner that has worked
with all parties to provide options on how the Bosque can be preserved,
protected and enjoyed by everyone. Additionally, the Army Corps of
Engineers is developing a preliminary restoration plan for the Bosque
along the Albuquerque corridor.
My bill authorizes $10 million dollars in Fiscal Year 2007 and such
sums as are necessary for the following nine years to complete
projects, activities, substantial ecosystem restoration, preservation,
protection, and recreation facilities along the Middle Rio Grande. I
urge my fellow members to help preserve this rare and diverse ecosystem
and to aid the city of Albuquerque and the State of New Mexico in
building a place to treasure.
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. 728

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

SECTION 1. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the Middle Rio Grande bosque is--
(A) a unique riparian forest along the Middle Rio Grande in
New Mexico;
(B) the largest continuous cottonwood forest in the
Southwest;
(C) one of the oldest continuously inhabited areas in the
United States;
(D) home to portions of 6 pueblos; and
(E) a critical flyway and wintering ground for migratory
birds;
(2) the portion of the Middle Rio Grande adjacent to the
Middle Rio Grande bosque provides water to many people in the
State of New Mexico;
(3) the Middle Rio Grande bosque should be maintained in a
manner that protects endangered species and the flow of the
Middle Rio Grande while making the Middle Rio Grande bosque
more accessible to the public;
(4) environmental restoration is an important part of the
mission of the Corps of Engineers; and
(5) the Corps of Engineers should reestablish, where
feasible, the hydrologic connection between the Middle Rio
Grande and the Middle Rio Grande bosque to ensure the
permanent healthy growth of vegetation native to the Middle
Rio Grande bosque.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

[[Page S2495]]

(1) Middle rio grande.--The term ``Middle Rio Grande''
means the portion of the Rio Grande from Cochiti Dam to the
headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir, in the State of New
Mexico.
(2) Restoration project.--The term ``restoration project''
means a project carried out under this Act that will produce,
consistent with other Federal programs, projects, and
activities, immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration,
preservation, recreation, and protection benefits.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.

SEC. 3. MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RESTORATION.

(a) Restoration Projects.--The Secretary shall carry out
restoration projects along the Middle Rio Grande.
(b) Project Selection.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may select restoration
projects in the Middle Rio Grande based on feasibility
studies.
(2) Use of existing studies and plans.--In carrying out
subsection (a), the Secretary shall use, to the maximum
extent practicable, studies and plans in existence on the
date of enactment of this Act to identify the needs and
priorities for restoration projects.
(c) Local Participation.--In carrying out this Act, the
Secretary shall consult with--
(1) the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Act
Collaborative Program; and
(2) the Bosque Improvement Group of the Middle Rio Grande
Bosque Initiative.
(d) Cost Sharing.--
(1) Cost-sharing agreement.--Before carrying out any
restoration project under this Act, the Secretary shall enter
into an agreement with the non-Federal interests that shall
require the non-Federal interests--
(A) to pay 25 percent of the total costs of the restoration
project through in-kind services or direct cash
contributions, including the cost of providing necessary
land, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal
sites;
(B) to pay 100 percent of the operation, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and rehabilitation costs associated with
the restoration project that are incurred after the date of
enactment of this Act; and
(C) to hold the United States harmless for any claim or
damage that may arise from the negligence of the Federal
Government or a contractor of the Federal Government.
(2) Non-federal interests.--Notwithstanding section 221 of
the Flood Control Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-5b), a non-
Federal interest carrying out a restoration project under
this Act may include a nonprofit entity.
(3) Recreational features.--
(A) In general.--Any recreational features included as part
of a restoration project shall comprise not more that 30
percent of the total project cost.
(B) Non-federal funding.--The full cost of any recreational
features included as part of a restoration project in excess
of the amount described in subparagraph (A) shall be paid by
the non-Federal interests.
(4) Credit.--The non-Federal interests shall receive credit
toward the non-Federal share of the cost of design or
construction activities carried out by the non-Federal
interests (including activities carried out before the
execution of the cooperation agreement for a restoration
project) if the Secretary determines that the work performed
by the non-Federal interest is integral to the project.

SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act--
(1) $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2007; and
(2) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2008 through 2016.
______

By Mr. SALAZAR:
S. 729. A bill to better provide for compensation for certain persons
injured in the course of employment at the Rocky Flats site in
Colorado; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about legislation I
introduced today. The Rocky Flats Special Exposure Cohort Act will at
long last repay our debt to the patriotic American workers of Rocky
Flats, who served our Nation during the Cold War.
Many Americans contributed to our victory in the Cold War. Brave men
and women worked in laboratories and factories throughout the Nation,
fashioning nuclear weapons that led to the fall of the former Soviet
Union. Unfortunately, many of these Cold War Veterans contracted cancer
and other disabling and fatal diseases due to their service.
Before I arrived to Washington, DC, Congress recognized the
sacrifices made by our nuclear weapons workers by enacting the Energy
Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (EEOICPA) to provide
benefits to nuclear weapons workers for their work-related illnesses or
to their survivors when these illnesses took their lives.
While thousands of workers are successfully applying and receiving
benefits today, others face incredible obstacles as they try to
demonstrate that they qualify for benefits. In fact, a combination of
missing records and bureaucratic red tape has prevented many workers
from accessing benefits who served at the Rocky Flats facility in
Colorado.
Our government failed these workers when they maintained shoddy,
inaccurate, and incomplete records. Thankfully, Congress had the
foresight in the Energy Employees Act to realize that some workers
might not be able to prove that their cancers were caused by their work
in nuclear weapons facilities, whether due to the lack of records or
other problems that make it difficult or impossible to determine the
dose of radiation they received. To protect these workers, Congress
designated a Special Exposure Cohort to receive benefits if they
suffered from one of the specified cancers known to be linked to
radiation exposure.
Since February 2005, Rocky Flats workers have patiently and
diligently been making their case to the Federal Government.
Unfortunately, many of the Rocky Flats workers are running out of time.
Over the past 2 years, several have passed away without having received
the healthcare and other benefits that they would have qualified for if
they were granted an SEC designation.
Their petition is being reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation
and Worker Health (ABRWH), a body that is stretched thin. In the past,
I have raised my strong concerns about the several unfilled Advisory
Board seats. I commend these Americans for having answered the calls of
their government to serve our country. Like our Cold War Veterans,
Advisory Board members have sacrificed their time and energy to perform
an important service. I believe it is the responsibility of this
Congress to fulfill its duty as well.
The bill I am introducing today would extend Special Exposure Cohort
status to workers employed by the Department of Energy or its
contractors at Rocky Flats according to the stringent requirements of
the EEOICPA. As a result of this designation, a Rocky Flats worker
suffering from one of the 22 listed cancers will be able to receive
benefits despite the inadequate records maintained by the Department of
Energy and its contractors.
Through five decades, men and women worked at Rocky Flats, producing
plutonium, one of the most dangerous substances in creation, and
crafting it into the triggers for America's nuclear arsenal. These men
and women served a critical role in a program deemed essential to our
national security by a succession of Presidents and Congresses. We owe
them an enormous debt of gratitude.
My bill is a companion bill to the bipartisan House bill, H.R. 904,
introduced by my friends, Congressman Mark Udall and Congressman Ed
Perlmutter from Colorado. I look forward to its bipartisan support in
the Senate and urge this body to swiftly take up and pass this
important legislation. In doing so, we will right a wrong and fulfill a
task that is long overdue.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
S. 730. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to protect
voting rights and to improve the administration of Federal elections,
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as we move forward in the coming months in
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration on critical election
reform hearings, I wanted to take this opportunity to re-introduce my
legislation, the Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Rights
(VOTER) Act of 2007. I am committed to working with our new Rules
Committee Chair Senator Feinstein and my other Rules Committee
colleagues, and with others off the committee, to try to secure
enactment of tough new election reform legislation in this Congress.
This bill provides a focus and framework for that discussion.
It does not purport to address all of the key problems in election
reform that have arisen since enactment in 2002 of the historic Help
America Vote Act (HAVA), but it is an important start, and I am pleased
that Senator Feinstein and I will be working together on comprehensive
reform legislation this year. In light of the continuing barriers that
American citizens

[[Page S2496]]

found at polling places across this Nation last November, including
technological barriers, human errors, and other problems, we cannot
rest on the laurels of past legislation. We must continue to strive to
provide an equal opportunity for all citizens to participate in their
democracy by voting and having their vote counted.
That's why today I am re-introducing this legislation. There is
nothing more fundamental to the vitality of a democracy of the people,
by the people, and for the people, than the people's right to vote. In
the words of Thomas Paine: ``The right of voting for representatives is
the primary right by which other rights are protected.'' Indeed, it is
the right on which all others in our democracy depend.
We still have a long way to go before we get to the point where all
Americans are able to participate without obstacles in our elections,
and able to participate with confidence in the voting systems they use.
In the 2000 presidential election, 51.2 percent of the eligible
American electorate voted. And although in the 2004 presidential
election voting participation reached its highest level since 1968,
only 60.7 percent of eligible Americans voted. That dropped back down,
in the 2006 off-year elections, to just over 40 percent.
While there are many reasons why more Americans do not vote, we
learned from the debacle of the 2000 presidential elections that many
citizens cannot vote and have their vote counted because they are
improperly removed from registration rolls, do not have access to
accessible voting systems and ballots, or lack confidence in antiquated
and error-prone machines and State administrative procedures. In
response to those concerns, in 2002 Congress enacted HAVA,
overwhelmingly bipartisan election reform legislation. For the first
time in our history, that landmark legislation established the role of
the Federal Government in administering and funding Federal elections.
The twin goals of the act were to make it easier to vote and harder to
defraud the system.

On the day that the Senate adopted its version of HAVA, I noted that
the Senate bill was a bipartisan compromise and the culmination of the
hard work of a dedicated group of Senators. But I also noted that the
compromise was just that--it was not everything that all of us wanted,
but it was something that everyone wanted. That was equally true of the
final HAVA compromise on election reform.
The 2004 and 2006 elections raised both continuing and new concerns.
And some of the most important of these concerns are not addressed by
HAVA. The fact that less than one-half of the eligible voting age
population voted in 2006 underscores the reality that not everybody
votes in America. We must do better on this front, and we can. As the
2006 elections in some states reminded us, we also must do better at
bolstering Americans' confidence in the security and reliability of our
election systems, while preserving critical access to people with
disabilities, language minorities, and others.
Let me summarize briefly what this bill does. First, the VOTER Act
provides every eligible American, regardless of where they live in the
world or where they find themselves on election day, the right to cast
a National Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot in Federal elections. This
new national absentee ballot extends to all citizens the same right to
a Federal absentee ballot that overseas and active military voters
currently have. Beginning with Federal elections in 2008, every State
shall provide early voting opportunities for a minimum of 15 days prior
to election day, including Saturdays. Beginning in 2009, any otherwise
eligible voter must be allowed to register to vote on election day and
have that vote counted in Federal elections. This last provision would
in itself be a major advance.
The VOTER Act also addresses many of the recurring, and new, barriers
to voting that voters faced at the polls in the last two federal
elections. It requires that a State count a provisional ballot for
Federal office cast within the State by an otherwise eligible voter,
notwithstanding the polling place where the ballot is cast.
HAVA established a uniform national right for every voter in a
Federal election to receive and cast a provisional ballot. This new
right was intended to ensure that no otherwise eligible voter could be
turned away from the polls because of an administrative error or other
challenge. But in 2004, and again in 2006, we saw this right eroded by
States and applied in non-uniform ways. Some States, such as Ohio,
initially interpreted HAVA to require that a voter be in their correct
precinct in order to cast a Federal provisional ballot. Other States
interpreted the same HAVA language to allow challenged voters to cast a
provisional ballot in their county of residence. Whether or not the
provisional ballot was ultimately counted turned solely on State law.
This bill ensures that voters who cast a provisional ballot for Federal
office will have that ballot counted in a uniform manner.
In addition, the VOTER Act requires that each State provide a minimum
required number of voting systems and poll workers for each polling
place on election day and during early voting, consistent with
mandatory standards established by the Election Assistance Commission.
This is to avoid the problem of long lines and disenfranchised voters
because of too few voting systems or ballots at polling places and too
few poll workers to assist voters. This requirement would become
effective in January, 2008.
To ensure that all voters have an opportunity to independently verify
their ballot before it is cast and counted, the VOTER Act also requires
that all States provide voters a voter-verified ballot with a choice of
at least four formats for verification: a paper record; an audio
record; a pictorial record; and an electronic record or other means
which is fully accessible to the disabled, including the blind and
visually impaired.
HAVA already requires that all voting systems provide voters an
opportunity to verify their ballot before it is cast and counted. HAVA
also requires that all systems produce a permanent paper record for
audit purposes. However, it does not spell out how that verification is
to be achieved to ensure security and independence of the voter's
choice.
In the last few years, many have called on Congress to require a
voter-verified paper ballot. And I understand what is behind that
impulse. Even so, unless voter verification schemes are carefully
crafted, paper-only processes can be less accurate, printer jams can
result in more destroyed ballots, and they can inherently discriminate
against the disabled, particularly the blind and visually-impaired.
HAVA already requires that all voters, regardless of disability, be
able to verify their ballots. With current and developing technology--
and with new approaches being developed which will require paper
ballots which are then convertible into formats for verification that
are accessible to persons with disabilities and language minorities--I
am hopeful that as we move forward we will be able to work out an
approach on which all sides can agree.
I continue to believe it is important to preserve the anti-
discrimination requirements in current law, by ensuring that
appropriate verification alternatives are offered to those who need
them. I know my colleagues have various proposals on this issue to
bring before the Committee for its consideration, either separately or
as part of more comprehensive reform efforts, and we should examine
those proposals carefully. That process has already begun with the
Committee's hearing last month which focused on problems with
electronic voting systems, including those currently before the court
in the contested election for the 13th Congressional District in
Sarasota County, Florida.
The VOTER Act also addresses the continuing problem of minority
disenfranchisement through last-minute purges of voter registration
lists by requiring States to provide public notice of any such purges
not later than 45 days before a Federal election.
To expedite the studies called for under HAVA for establishing
election day as a Federal holiday, the VOTER Act requires the EAC to
complete its study and issue recommendations within 6 months of
enactment and earmarks funds within the EAC budget solely for this
purpose.
It also includes amendments to HAVA that build on the existing voting
system requirements to ensure that all voting systems, including punch
cards

[[Page S2497]]

and central count optical scan machines, provide voters with actual
notice of over-votes. Also, beginning in 2009, States must allow for
voter registration through the Internet. The bill also includes
provisions to ensure both the security and uniform treatment of voter
registration applications by requiring that all voters sign an
affidavit attesting to both their citizenship and age, in lieu of the
HAVA requirements for a check-off box alone, effective in 2009.
HAVA requires that voter registration forms include questions
regarding citizenship and age with check-off boxes that applicants use
to indicate whether or not they meet eligibility requirements. States
are further required to contact any applicant who does not fill in the
boxes in order to complete the form. However, in the 2004 and 2006
elections, States implemented this requirement in widely varying ways,
resulting in non-uniform treatment of voters in Federal elections. In
some cases, States refused to process the form and failed to contact
the voter. In other States, voters who had submitted incomplete forms
were asked to complete those forms at the polling place. While the twin
purposes of HAVA were to make it easier to vote and harder to defraud
the system, as implemented this requirement achieves neither purpose.
This requirement further resulted in disenfranchising voters who failed
to check a box but nonetheless signed an affidavit, under penalty of
perjury, attesting to both their citizenship and age. With the
implementation of statewide voter registration lists, the check-off box
requirement is unnecessary and burdensome to both voters and election
administrators.
To ensure that the implementation of the voter identification
requirements in HAVA do not make it harder to vote, the VOTER Act
expands the forms of identification that can be used to establish
identity for first-time voters who submit their voter registration by
mail to include an affidavit executed by the voter attesting to his or
her identity, generally subject to penalties for perjury under State
law.
The VOTER Act also begins to respond to concerns first raised in the
2000 Presidential election in Florida, and echoed again in the 2004 and
2006 elections, regarding the appearance of impartiality by State
election officials who were otherwise active in Federal campaigns. The
bill imposes new accountability and transparency requirements on
States, beginning in 2008, including a public notice requirement of any
changes in State law affecting the administration of elections, such as
changes in polling places and actions denying access to polling place
observers. Some have urged going beyond this, including by banning
state election officials from engaging in political activity in races
which they oversee; the committee should consider this approach
carefully.
To ensure the independence of the Election Assistance Commission, and
the timely issuance of guidance and standards, the bill provides the
agency with independent budget authority and the authority to issue
mandatory standards to implement the new requirements. Finally, in
recognition of the inherent role of the States in the administration of
Federal elections, the VOTER Act provides additional Federal funds for
the State requirement grants under HAVA to implement the new
requirements.
This measure does not pretend to be exhaustive, and I know there are
other important reform ideas that will be considered by the committee,
including measures to penalize deceptive voter intimidation practices,
to impose additional voting systems testing, to improve poll worker
training, to ease registration for new voters, and others. I welcome a
full discussion of all of these issues.
While Congress accomplished much with the passage of the Help America
Vote Act following the debacle of the 2000 Presidential election, 5
years later voters still face some of the same barriers to voting that
HAVA promised to remove. As we move forward on election reform this
year, let us ensure that every eligible American voter has an equal
opportunity to cast a vote and have that vote counted in Federal
elections.
I invite my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this measure, and
I ask unanimous consent that a brief section-by-section analysis of
this measure be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the analysis was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Voting Opportunity and Technology Enhancement Act of 2007

section-by-section analysis

Sec. 1.--Tit1e; Table of Contents.
Sec. 2.--Findings and Purposes.
Sec. 3.--National Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot.
Sec. 3 creates a National Federal Write-in Absentee Ballot
(NFWAB) for Federal office to be used in a Federal election
by any otherwise eligible voter.
Sec. 3 requires States to accept the NFWAB cast by any
person eligible to vote in a Federal election, provided the
ballot has been postmarked or signed by the voter before the
close of the polls on election day.
Sec. 3 requires the Election Assistance Commission to
prescribe a national Federal write-in absentee ballot and
prescribe standards for distributing the ballot, including
distribution through the Internet.
Sec. 4.--Voter Verified Ballots.
Sec. 4 requires that all voting systems purchased after
January 1, 2009 and used in Federal elections provide an
independent means for each voter to verify the ballot before
it is cast and counted.
Sec. 4 allows each voter to choose one means of
verification from among the following options--(l) paper; (2)
audio; (3) pictorial; or (4) an electronic record accessible
for voters with disabilities.
Sec. 5.--Requirements for Counting Provisional Ballots.
Sec. 5 requires that a State shall count a provisional
ballot for Federal office cast within the State by an
otherwise eligible voter, notwithstanding the polling place
in which the ballot is cast.
Sec. 6.--Minimum Required Voting Systems and Poll Workers in
Polling Places.
Sec. 6 requires that each state shall provide the minimum
required number of voting systems and poll workers for each
polling place on election day and during early voting,
consistent with mandatory standards established by the
Election Assistance Commission.
Sec. 7.--Election Day Registration.
Sec. 7 requires that each State shall provide for election
day registration in a Federal election for any otherwise
eligible individual, using a form established by the Election
Assistance Commission, unless the State does not have a voter
registration requirement.
Sec. 8.--Integrity of Voter Registration Lists.
Sec. 8 requires that each State provide public notice at
least 45 days before a Federal election of all names removed
from the voter registration list.
Sec. 9.--Early Voting.
Sec. 9 requires that each State shall establish an early
voting program for a minimum of 15 calendar days before a
Federal election that provides a uniform voting period each
day, except Sunday, for at least 4 hours.
Sec. 10.--Acceleration of Study on Election Day as a Public
Holiday.
Sec. 10 requires the Election Assistance Commission to
submit within 6 months of enactment of this Act the report on
establishing a public election day holiday and uniform poll
closing time, and authorizes $100,000 for fiscal year 2007
for that purpose.
Sec. 11.--lmprovements to Voting Systems.
Sec. 11 requires that punch card and central count voting
systems conform to the in person notice of over-votes in Sec.
301 of the Help America Vote Act and to permit a--voter to
verify and change or correct any errors before the ballot is
cast and counted.
Sec. 12.--Voter Registration.
Sec. 12 requires that, by January 1, 2009, the mail
registration form be changed to include an affidavit to be
signed by the voter attesting to citizenship and age
eligibility and requires each State to establish a program to
permit voter registration through the Internet.
Sec. 13.--Establishing Voter Identification.
Sec. 13 requires that an individual may meet the
identification requirement for voters who register by mail as
described in Sec. 303 of the Help America Vote Act by
executing a written affidavit attesting to the individual's
identity.
Sec. 13 requires the Election Assistance Commission to
develop standards for verifying voter identification
information required for registration (the driver's license
number or last four digits of the social security number), as
described in Sec. 303 of the Help America Vote Act.
Sec. 14.--Impartial Administration of Elections.
Sec. 14 requires that each State will issue a public notice
of changes in State election law since the most recent
election.
Sec. 14 requires that each State will allow uniform,
nondiscriminatory access to observe a Federal election at any
polling place to party challengers, voting and civil rights
organizations, and nonpartisan domestic and international
observers.
Sec. 15.--Strengthening the Election Assistance Commission.
Sec. 15 requires the Election Assistance Commission to
provide budget estimates and requests to the Congress, the
House Administration Committee, and the Senate Rules

[[Page S2498]]

and Administration Committee when it submits such estimates
and requests to the President or Office of Management and
Budget; the section provides rule-making authority for the
Election Assistance Commission with respect to subtitle C of
this Act; the section requires that the Director of the
National Institutes of Standards and Technology provide the
Commission with technical support.
Sec. 15 authorizes $23 million for the operational costs of
the Election Assistance Commission for fiscal year 2007, with
$3 million earmarked for the National Institute of Standards
and Technology for technical support, and such sums as
necessary for the succeeding fiscal years.
Sec. 16.--Authorization of Appropriations.
Sec. 16 authorizes $2 billion for fiscal year 2007 and such
sums as necessary thereafter for requirements grants to
States under title II of the Help America Vote Act to
implement the additional requirements.
______

By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Webb, Mr. Tester,
and Mr. Bunning):
S. 731. A bill to develop a methodology for, and complete, a national
assessment of geological storage capacity for carbon dioxide, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today, I am proud to introduce the
National Carbon Dioxide Storage Capacity Assessment Act of 2007.
Our earth is getting warmer. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration recently announced that 2006 was the warmest year on
record, and every single year since 1993 has fallen in the top twenty
warmest years on record.
In February 2007, a report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change found the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere resulting from the burning of fossil fuels have
increased more than 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution. The
increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing
to the increased temperatures we are seeing today.
The United States is the largest emitter of CO2 in the
world, and much of these emissions come from satisfying our energy
needs. These same energy needs that fuel our homes, our cars, and our
economy are hurting our planet. The debate on climate change in the
Senate has started to transform, it has gone from whether or not
climate change is real, to what can we do, now, to address climate
change. There has been much discussion in the Senate about the need to
create a clean energy future for America, and there is much optimism
about our ability to produce energy in ways that do not harm the
environment.
In attempting to limit emissions, one promising step we can take is
to sequester carbon dioxide. Carbon sequestration is a process where
carbon is captured before it is released into the atmosphere,
compressed, and stored underground in geological areas such as saline
formations, unmineable coal seams, and oil and gas reservoirs. This
technology exists today.
My legislation would start us on the path to large-scale
sequestration by directing the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a
national assessment of our sequestration capacity. Specifically, this
assessment would evaluate the potential capacity and rate of carbon
sequestration in all possible sites throughout the United States, as
well the various risk levels involved.
Carbon sequestration also holds potential economic benefits for the
United States. Sequestration has the potential to enhance the recovery
capabilities of certain oil, gas, and coal-bed reservoirs increasing
the efficiency of these important resources to the benefit of all.
The Department of Energy has already established seven regional
carbon sequestration partnerships. These partnerships have vital
experience and understanding about the potential for storing carbon
dioxide. This bill will build upon the existing work of these
partnerships, and create a national database assessable to the public
on the potential storage sites across the United States--enabling
companies to make cost-effective decisions needed to make sequestration
a viable option.
The need to combat climate change is here; many of the techniques and
technologies to combat climate change are available; and we have the
will to act. What is missing for carbon sequestration is a accessible,
national assessment of the potential storage sites. This bill gives us
the tools our country needs to spur the implementation of carbon
sequestration, fight climate change, and create a clean energy future.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Kennedy):
S. 732. A bill to empower Peace Corps volunteers, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today, March 1, marks the 46th Anniversary
of the Peace Corps. Never in our history has it been more critical that
the Peace Corps succeed in its mission to ``promote world peace and
friendship.'' As we all know, the Peace Corps seeks to advance both a
better understanding of Americans and better understanding by
Americans; and these goals are especially central if we want to
effectively counter the spread of extremist ideology to disaffected
people around the world, people who, after all, know as little of us as
we know of them.
Since 1961, nearly 190,000 Peace Corps volunteers have served our
Nation as citizen diplomats. For the last 45 years, by living and
working side-by-side with people from 139 nations, these volunteers
have represented the very best of American ideals: working to improve
the human condition, and overcoming barriers of culture, language and
religion, through patience, mutual respect, and partnership.
The Peace Corps is an absolutely crucial instrument in advancing
America's longer term foreign policy goals. And so today I am proud to
introduce the Peace Corps Volunteer Empowerment Act that is designed to
make the Peace Corps even more relevant to the dynamic world of the
21st Century. I am also very pleased to announce that another returned
Peace Corps volunteer, Congressman Sam Farr will shortly introduce a
companion bill in the House so that both bodies can begin working to
pass this very important legislation.
The bill will provide seed monies for active Peace Corps volunteers
for demonstration projects at their specific in-country sites. It
authorizes $10 million in additional annual appropriations to be
distributed by the Peace Corps as grants to returned Peace Corps
volunteers interested in undertaking ``third goal'' projects in their
communities. The bill will also authorize active Peace Corps volunteers
to accept, under certain carefully defined circumstances, private
donations to support their development projects.
For any organization to thrive, managers and leaders must have access
to first-hand knowledge and perspectives of those working on the front
lines. And so, this bill will establish mechanisms for more volunteer
input into Peace Corps operations, including staffing decisions, site
selection, language training and country programs. This bill will also
explicitly protect certain rights of Peace Corps volunteers with
respect to termination of service and whistleblower protection.
We must bring the Peace Corps into the digital age. To that end, this
bill will provide volunteers with better means of communication by
establishing websites and email links for use by volunteers in-country.
Inadequate funding and internal structural roadblocks have
unfortunately resulted in an unfulfilled Presidential pledge to double
the size of the Peace Corps by 2007. Despite a large increase in
volunteers signing up for the Peace Corps immediately after September
11, the Congressional Research Service reports that the number of Peace
Corps volunteers actually declined in 2006. It is crucial that we work
to reverse this troubling trend. That is why this bill authorizes
active recruitment from the 185,000 returned Peace Corps volunteer
community for second tours as volunteers and as participants in third
goal activities in the United States.
This bill will also remove certain medical, healthcare and other
impediments that discourage older individuals from becoming Peace Corps
volunteers. It will create more transparency in the medical screening
and appeals process, and require reports on costs associated with
extending post-service health coverage from 1 month to 6 months.
Finally, and perhaps most crucially, my bill includes annual
authorizations for Fiscal Years 2008 to 2011, so that we can provide
the means by which the

[[Page S2499]]

Peace Corps can double the number of volunteers to 15,000, by 2011.
In all the controversies of the past 5 years, all the vagaries of
strategy and tactics and plans and counter plans, there's one policy
that guarantees success: sending our best young men and women into the
world to make America known. So, I encourage my colleagues to support
this bill, to modernize, strengthen and enlarge the Peace Corps. On the
46th Anniversary of this great program, let us act swiftly to ensure
that at the very least, the Peace Corps will continue to thrive for an
additional 46 years.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Ms. Collins):
S. 733. A bill to promote the development of health care cooperatives
that will help businesses to pool the health care purchasing power of
employers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Health,
Education, labor, and pensions.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague Senator
Collins from Maine, I am introducing legislation to help businesses
form group-purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, to
reduce health care rates, and to improve quality for their employees'
health care.
High health care costs are burdening businesses and employees across
the Nation. These costs are digging into profits and preventing access
to affordable health care. Too many patients feel trapped by the
system, with decisions about their health dictated by costs rather than
by what they need.
Nationally, the annual average cost to an employer for an individual
employee's health care is $3,615. For a family, the employer
contribution is $8,508. We must curb these rapidly increasing health
care costs. I strongly support initiatives to ensure that everyone has
access to health care. It is crucial that we support successful local
initiatives to reduce health care premiums and to improve the quality
of employees' health care.
By using group purchasing to obtain rate discounts, some employers
have been able to reduce the cost of health care premiums for their
employees. According to the National Business Coalition on Health,
there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United States
that collectively purchase health care. Through these pools, businesses
are able to proactively challenge high costs and inefficient delivery
of health care and share information on quality. These coalitions
represent over 10,000 employers nationwide.
Improving the quality of health care will also lower the cost of
care. By investing in the delivery of quality health care, we will be
able to lower long term health care costs. Effective care, such as
quality preventive services, can reduce overall health care
expenditures. Health purchasing coalitions help promote these services
and act as an employer forum for networking and education on health
care cost containment strategies. They can help foster a dialogue with
health care providers, insurers, and local HMOs.
Health care markets are local. Problems with cost, quality, and
access to health care are felt most intensely in the local markets.
Health care coalitions can function best when they are formed and
implemented locally. Local employers of large and small businesses have
formed health care coalitions to track health care trends, create a
demand for quality and safety, and encourage group purchasing.
In Wisconsin, there have been various successful initiatives that
have formed health care purchasing cooperatives to improve quality of
care and to reduce cost. For example, the Employer Health Care Alliance
Cooperative, an employer-owned and employer-directed not-for-profit
cooperative, has developed a network of health care providers in Dane
County and 12 surrounding counties on behalf of its 157 member
employers. Through this pooling effort, employers are able to obtain
affordable, high-quality health care for their nearly 73,000 employees
and dependents.
This legislation seeks to build on successful local initiatives, such
as the Alliance, that help businesses to join together to increase
access to affordable and high-quality health care.
The Promoting Health Care Purchasing Cooperatives Act would authorize
grants to a group of businesses so that they could form group-
purchasing cooperatives to obtain enhanced benefits, reduce health care
rates, and improve quality.
This legislation offers two separate grant programs to help different
types of businesses pool their resources and bargaining power. Both
programs would aid businesses to form cooperatives. The first program
would help large businesses that sponsor their own health plans, while
the second program would help small businesses that purchase their
health insurance.
My bill would enable larger businesses to form cost-effective
cooperatives that could offer quality health care through several ways.
First, they could obtain health services through pooled purchasing from
physicians, hospitals, home health agencies, and others. By pooling
their experience and interests, employers involved in a coalition could
better address essential issues, such as rising health insurance rates
and the lack of comparable health care quality data. They would be able
to share information regarding the quality of these services and to
partner with these health care providers to meet the needs of their
employees.
For smaller businesses that purchase their health insurance, the
formation of cooperatives would allow them to buy health insurance at
lower prices through pooled purchasing. Also, the communication within
these cooperatives would provide employees of small businesses with
better information about the health care options that are available to
them. Finally, coalitions would serve to promote quality improvements
by facilitating partnerships between their group and the health care
providers.
By working together, the group could develop better quality insurance
plans and negotiate better rates.
This legislation also tries to alleviate the burden that our Nation's
farmers face when trying to purchase health care for themselves, their
families, and their employees. Because the health insurance industry
looks upon farming as a high-risk profession, many farmers are priced
out of, or simply not offered, health insurance. By helping farmers
join cooperatives to purchase health insurance, we will help increase
their health insurance options.
Past health purchasing pool initiatives have focused only on cost and
have tried to be all things for all people. My legislation creates an
incentive to join the pools by giving grants to a group of similar
businesses to form group-purchasing cooperatives. The pools are also
given flexibility to find innovative ways to lower costs, such as
enhancing benefits, for example, more preventive care, and improving
quality. Finally, the cooperative structure is a proven model, which
creates an incentive for businesses to remain in the pool because they
will be invested in the organization.
We must reform health care in America and give employers and
employees more options. This legislation, by providing for the
formation of cost-effective coalitions that will also improve the
quality of care, contributes to this essential reform process. I urge
my colleagues to join me in supporting this proposal to improve the
quality and costs of health care.
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. 733

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 ``Promoting Health Care
Purchasing Cooperatives Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Health care spending in the United States has reached
16 percent of the Gross Domestic Product of the United
States, yet 46,000,000 people remains uninsured.
(2) After nearly a decade of manageable increases in
commercial insurance premiums, many employers are now faced
with consecutive years of double digit premium increases.
(3) Purchasing cooperatives owned by participating
businesses are a proven method of achieving the bargaining
power necessary to manage the cost and quality of employer-
sponsored health plans and other employee benefits.
(4) The Employer Health Care Alliance Cooperative has
provided its members with

[[Page S2500]]

health care purchasing power through provider contracting,
data collection, activities to enhance quality improvements
in the health care community, and activities to promote
employee health care consumerism.
(5) According to the National Business Coalition on Health,
there are nearly 80 employer-led coalitions across the United
States that collectively purchase health care, proactively
challenge high costs and the inefficient delivery of health
care, and share information on quality. These coalitions
represent more than 10,000 employers.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to build off of
successful local employer-led health insurance initiatives by
improving the value of their employees' health care.

SEC. 3. GRANTS TO SELF INSURED BUSINESSES TO FORM HEALTH CARE
COOPERATIVES.

(a) Authorization.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services (in this Act referred to as the ``Secretary''),
acting through the Director of the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality, is authorized to award grants to
eligible groups that meet the criteria described in
subsection (d), for the development of health care purchasing
cooperatives. Such grants may be used to provide support for
the professional staff of such cooperatives, and to obtain
contracted services for planning, development, and
implementation activities for establishing such health care
purchasing cooperatives.
(b) Eligible Group Defined.--
(1) In general.--In this section, the term ``eligible
group'' means a consortium of 2 or more self-insured
employers, including agricultural producers, each of which
are responsible for their own health insurance risk pool with
respect to their employees.
(2) No transfer of risk.--Individual employers who are
members of an eligible group may not transfer insurance risk
to such group.
(c) Application.--An eligible group desiring a grant under
this section shall submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such
information as the Secretary may require.
(d) Criteria.--
(1) Feasibility study grants.--
(A) In general.--An eligible group may submit an
application under subsection (c) for a grant to conduct a
feasibility study concerning the establishment of a health
insurance purchasing cooperative. The Secretary shall approve
applications submitted under the preceding sentence if the
study will consider the criteria described in paragraph (2).
(B) Report.--After completion of a feasibility study under
a grant under this section, an eligible group shall submit to
the Secretary a report describing the results of such study.
(2) Grant criteria.--The criteria described in this
paragraph include the following with respect to the eligible
group:
(A) The ability of the group to effectively pool the health
care purchasing power of employers.
(B) The ability of the group to provide data to employers
to enable such employers to make data-based decisions
regarding their health plans.
(C) The ability of the group to drive quality improvement
in the health care community.
(D) The ability of the group to promote health care
consumerism through employee education, self-care, and
comparative provider performance information.
(E) The ability of the group to meet any other criteria
determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(e) Cooperative Grants.--After the submission of a report
by an eligible group under subsection (d)(1)(B), the
Secretary shall determine whether to award the group a grant
for the establishment of a cooperative under subsection (a).
In making a determination under the preceding sentence, the
Secretary shall consider the criteria described in subsection
(d)(2) with respect to the group.
(f) Cooperatives.--
(1) In general.--An eligible group awarded a grant under
subsection (a) shall establish or expand a health insurance
purchasing cooperative that shall--
(A) be a nonprofit organization;
(B) be wholly owned, and democratically governed by its
member-employers;
(C) exist solely to serve the membership base;
(D) be governed by a board of directors that is
democratically elected by the cooperative membership using a
1-member, 1-vote standard; and
(E) accept any new member in accordance with specific
criteria, including a limitation on the number of members,
determined by the Secretary.
(2) Authorized cooperative activities.--A cooperative
established under paragraph (1) shall--
(A) assist the members of the cooperative in pooling their
health care insurance purchasing power;
(B) provide data to improve the ability of the members of
the cooperative to make data-based decisions regarding their
health plans;
(C) conduct activities to enhance quality improvement in
the health care community;
(D) work to promote health care consumerism through
employee education, self-care, and comparative provider
performance information; and
(E) conduct any other activities determined appropriate by
the Secretary.
(g) Review.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which grants are awarded under this section, and every 2
years thereafter, the Secretary shall study programs funded
by grants under this section and provide to the appropriate
committees of Congress a report on the progress of such
programs in improving the access of employees to quality,
affordable health insurance.
(2) Sliding scale funding.--The Secretary shall use the
information included in the report under paragraph (1) to
establish a schedule for scaling back payments under this
section with the goal of ensuring that programs funded with
grants under this section are self sufficient within 10
years.

SEC. 4. GRANTS TO SMALL BUSINESSES TO FORM HEALTH CARE
COOPERATIVES.

The Secretary shall carry out a grant program that is
identical to the grant program provided in section 3, except
that an eligible group for a grant under this section shall
be a consortium of 2 or more employers, including
agricultural producers, each of which--
(1) have 99 employees or less; and
(2) are purchasers of health insurance (are not self-
insured) for their employees.

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

From the administrative funds provided to the Secretary,
the Secretary may use not more than a total of $60,000,000
for fiscal years 2008 through 2017 to carry out this Act.
______

By Mr. SPECTER:
S. 734. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce
the rate of the tentative minimum tax for noncorporate taxpayers to 24
percent; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to introduce
legislation to provide relief to the rising number of taxpayers
impacted by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Between a lack of
indexing for inflation and higher AMT tax rates relative to the regular
income tax system, we now have a tax system which has grown far beyond
its intended result. Important changes must be made to address these
two critical issues. Absent legislative action, the number of taxpayers
subject to AMT liability will continue to rise sharply. The AMT Rate
Reduction Act of 2007 would bring the AMT back ``in line'' with the
regular individual income tax by reducing its rate back to 24 percent.
Combined with the continued extension of the AMT exemption, this
proposal would remove millions of unintended middle-class taxpayers
from the AMT rolls.
The AMT functions as a parallel tax system to the regular income tax
so that when a taxpayer's AMT liability exceeds their regular income
tax liability, that person must pay the AMT. The AMT is set up to
ensure that high-income taxpayers pay their fair share by denying
certain deductions and exemptions available under the regular income
tax. However, the AMT is now hitting the middle class--and hitting them
hard.
It is important to keep in mind that the first version of the AMT was
created in 1969 in response to a small number of high-income
individuals who had paid little or no federal income taxes. In 2006,
3.5 million taxpayers will be subject to the AMT, and that number will
continue to increase sharply in the coming decade. In Pennsylvania
alone, 79,000 individuals filed their returns under the AMT in 2003,
accounting for 1.37 percet of all Pennsylvania returns; 114,000
Pennsylvania returns were filed under the AMT in 2004, accounting for
1.97 percent of all Pennsylvania returns; and 137,486 Pennsylvania
returns were filed under the AMT in 2005.
This onerous tax is slapped on average American families largely
because the AMT is not indexed for inflation, while the regular income
tax is indexed, and taxpayers are ``pushed'' into the AMT through so-
called ``bracket creep.'' Temporary increases in the AMT exemption
amounts expired at the end of 2006. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief
Reconciliation Act of 2001 increased the AMT exemption amount effective
for tax years between 2001 and 2004; the Working Families Tax Relief
Act of 2004 extended the previous increase in the AMT exemption amounts
through 2005; and the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of
2005 increased the AMT exemption amount for 2006. If we do not again
adjust the AMT exemption amount, it is estimated that the number of
taxpayers subject to the AMT will jump from 3.5 million in 2006 to 23
million in 2007, with middle-income taxpayers most affected. In
Pennsylvania alone, that number will jump drastically to 837,000 in
2007. According to the Congressional Research Service, taxpayers

[[Page S2501]]

filing joint returns with no dependents will be subject to the AMT
starting at income levels of $75,386. Large families will be subject to
the AMT at income levels as low as $49,438.
In addition to the issue of indexing the AMT exemption amount for
inflation, the AMT tax rate relative to the regular income tax must
also be addressed to keep additional taxpayers who were never intended
to pay the AMT from being subject to its burdensome grasp. In 1993,
President Clinton and a Democrat-controlled Congress imposed a
significant tax hike on Americans through the regular income tax. At
the same time, the AMT tax rate was also increased from 24 percent to
26 percent for taxable income under $175,000 and from 24 percent to 28
percent for taxable income that exceeds $175,000. In theory, these
simultaneous changes had the effect of keeping roughly the same number
of individuals paying their taxes under the AMT. However, when
President Bush's tax cuts were enacted in 2001 and 2003, Congress did
not again adjust the AMT tax rates. Ironically, by reducing regular
income tax liabilities without substantially changing the AMT, many new
taxpayers were pushed into these higher AMT tax rates created in 1993.
According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on
February 23, 2007, entitled ``Bill Clinton's AMT Bomb,'' the number of
filers paying the AMT increased from 300,000 to nearly 2 million
between 1992 and 2002. The WSJ also cites a Joint Committee on Taxation
(JCT) analysis from April 2006 which shows that about 11 million more
Americans will have to pay the AMT next year as a result of the 1993
AMT rate increase. It concludes that ``going back to the pre-Clinton
rates would leave only about 2.6 million tax filers subject to an AMT
penalty next year instead of 23 million under current law.''
The most unfortunate aspect of adjusting the AMT is the associated
cost. According to the April 2006 JCT analysis, the ten-year cost of my
proposal, combined with extension of the AMT exemption amount, is a
staggering $632.7 billion. However, it is still substantially less than
the cost of full repeal. According to the Congressional Research
Service, it is estimated that repealing the AMT would cost, depending
on whether the recent reductions in the regular income tax are extended
beyond 2010, $806 billion to over $1.4 trillion from 2007 through 2016.
I am cognizant of the fact that Democrats in the 110th Congress will
seek to fully offset the cost of the lost revenue resulting from any
adjustment to the AMT. With the political realities being as such, I am
willing to work with my colleagues to identify reasonable offsets, if
they are necessary, to garner broad support for this effort. However,
it is questionable whether an offset should be needed to recover
``lost'' revenue that was never intended to be collected in the first
place.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to both simplify our tax
code and to identify the best avenue for keeping unintended taxpayers
from falling prey to the AMT. I will continue to support the so-called
``hold-harmless patch.'' By both extending and increasing the AMT
exemption amount to keep up with inflation, the ``patch'' ensures that
no additional taxpayers on the lower end of the income spectrum become
liable for the AMT. However, I urge my colleagues to support my
legislation which would remove millions of additional unintended
taxpayers who are currently subject the AMT.
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. 734

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 ``AMT Rate Reduction Act of
2007''.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION IN RATE OF TENTATIVE MINIMUM TAX FOR
NONCORPORATE TAXPAYERS.

(a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 55(b)(1)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to noncorporate
taxpayers) is amended to read as follows:
``(i) In general.--In the case of a taxpayer other than a
corporation, the tentative minimum tax for the taxable year
is--
``(I) 24 percent of the taxable excess, reduced by
``(II) the alternative minimum tax foreign tax credit for
the taxable year.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (A) of section
55(b)(1) of such Code is amended by striking clause (iii).
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, and Mr. Coleman, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 735. A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the
terrorist hoax statute; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, in the wake of the tragic events of
September 11, Congress, the Administration and the country faced the
urgent need to do all we can to strengthen our national security and
counterterrorism strategy. Soon after the attacks, Congress moved
swiftly to enact new intelligence and law enforcement powers for the
Federal Government through the PATRIOT Act. Since then, we have also
enacted legislation to reform our intelligence laws, and we spent
significant time re-authorizing key provisions of the PATRIOT Act last
year.
Yet, much work still needs to be done to achieve the goals of the 9/
11 Commission. Two and a half years after its report, many of its
recommendations haven't been implemented and the Nation remains
seriously unprepared for another terrorist strike. A top priority is to
enact the pending Improving America's Security Act--an important step
in the right direction to implement the Commission's recommendations
and strengthen the nation's preparedness against terrorism.
Given the circumstances driving the passage of these measures, the
administration and Congress must continue to work together to assess
whether existing national security laws are adequate and make necessary
improvements when required.
While families in Boston, New York and across the country were still
grieving over the tragedy of September 11, our communities suddenly
faced a new threat, when anthrax contamination resulted in 5 deaths and
20 hospitalizations across the country. As Federal, State and local law
enforcement struggled to deal with the threat of terrorism, yet another
challenge arose because of reckless individuals who perpetrated hoaxes
that caused panic, unrest and expenditure of critical resources.
Since September 11 such hoaxes have seriously disrupted many lives
and needlessly diverted law-enforcement and emergency-services
resources. In the wake of the anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001, for
example, a number of individuals mailed unidentified white powder,
intending for the recipient to believe it was anthrax. Over 150,000
anthrax hoaxes were reported between September 2001 and August 2002.
In Massachusetts, one of these hoaxes was directed at a military
facility. Fire trucks and hazmat responders rushed to the scene at the
Agawam armory, only to learn that the powder spread over the armory
equipment was not a toxic substance.
Hoaxes about anthrax continue to be a serious problem. Earlier this
week, such a scare shut down a university campus in Missouri when a
student claimed to have a bomb and anthrax. It was a false alarm, but
authorities had no choice except to make a serious response. They
quarantined 23 people and evacuated 6,000 students from the campus and
a nearby elementary school. The emotional and financial costs
associated with these hoaxes puts an extraordinary strain on our
communities and resources.
Progress has been made to pass Federal and State laws to give
prosecutors the authority to charge perpetrators engaging in such
reckless conduct. Without tough and comprehensive laws on the books,
successful and fair prosecutions are much more difficult.
In 2004, Congress enacted the first Federal terrorism hoax statute.
Its purpose was to establish definitions and set serious penalties to
deal with the problem of hoax crimes, but events have moved the need
for additional authority. A significant number of prosecutions have
taken place for individuals who disrupt communities with terrorist
hoaxes, but a disturbing pattern has also developed of new hoaxes not
covered by the original law.

[[Page S2502]]

A few weeks ago in Boston, advertisers using so-called ``guerrilla
tactics'' left strange packages near sites essential for our region's
infrastructure. A serious response obviously had to be made, but its
cost was high. Our public safety officials did an outstanding job in
responding to the threat and discovering the hoax. Boston, Cambridge,
Somerville and other affected local governments are struggling to deal
with the cost and lost productivity it caused.
The incident highlighted the need to close the gaps in existing
federal law on terrorist hoaxes. The current statute only punishes
hoaxes involving an unduly restricted list of terrorist offenses. This
list does not include, for example, hoaxes related to taking hostages,
to blowing up energy facilities, attacks on military bases, or attacks
on railways and mass-transit facilities, such as the London bombings.
The legislation I am introducing today will punish hoaxes involving
any terrorist offense listed in current law. It also increases the
maximum penalty for hoaxes involving the death or injury of a U.S.
soldier during wartime.
One such incident involved a soldier from Flagstaff, Arizona who was
then serving in Iraq. On a Sunday morning a prank caller devastated the
family of a 22-year-old in the Army, falsely telling them their son was
dead. The call came only hours after the soldier had appeared in an
Arizona Daily Sun photo at a Support the Troops rally.
The hoax was a nightmare for the family. It took them a full day to
get confirmation that their son was still alive in Iraq. As a member of
the family testified, ``As a result of this ordeal, my family had been
put in an upheaval that is unimaginable. My mother, my brother, my
sister and everybody in my family were placed in terror and
immeasurable pain. My niece even went into premature labor.''
The consequences of this hoax went beyond the soldier's family. The
Army had allowed him to call home from Iraq by satellite phone to
reassure them that he was alive and uninjured. But another soldier had
been killed bringing him the satellite phone to make the call.
As the son wrote to his uncle: ``I have seen things words can't
describe and done things I don't want to. I lost some friends out here
loading their bodies on the truck was the worst feeling in the world.
One guy died bringing me a satellite phone so I could call dad to let
him know I was alive. It made me think of Saving Private Ryan. Was it
worth his life and the risk of three others to bring me a phone? I know
it was a relief to all of you to hear I was OK. Now I feel I must make
my life worth his. I don't know if I can do that.''
The person who caused such a hoax deserves to be punished. This bill
assures that effective penalties will be imposed for similar crimes in
the future.
The bill also expands civil liability to allow first responders and
others to seek reimbursement from a party who knows that first
responders are responding to such a hoax and fails to inform
authorities that no such event has occurred.
Finally, the bill clarifies that threatening communications are
punishable under federal law even if they are directed at an
organization rather than a person.
It's unconscionable in this post-9/11 world, for anyone to be
perpetrating hoaxes that cause panic and drain already limited public
safety resources.
All of us remember where we were and what we were doing on 9/11. We
will never forget the lives that were lost and the heroism of the first
responders. We honor all those working so hard today to prevent future
attacks. Hopefully, this bill will fulfill its purpose of preventing
the false alarms that can be so disruptive of our families and our
communities in these difficult and dangerous times.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, the legislation that I am introducing
today along with Senator's Kennedy and Kyl will install tougher
penalties on those who commit terrorism hoaxes. This is a very
important issue to me given the September 2001 bomb threat to the Mall
of America and because St. Paul is hosting the 2008 Republican
Convention.
We need to send a clear message to those planning a terrorism hoax
that they will pay for it dearly by spending a number of years in
prison. Terrorizing the public through false threats is not a joke and
should be treated as criminal conduct. The threats may be fake but the
consequences are very real in costs to first responders, lost revenues
and sometimes the loss of human life.
The problem is the current federal statute only punishes hoaxes
involving an unduly restricted list of terrorist offenses. This list
does not include: hoaxes related to the taking of hostages in order to
coerce the Federal Government; hoaxes related to blowing up an energy
facility; hoaxes related to attacks on military bases aimed at
undermining national defense; or hoaxes related to attacks on railways
and mass-transportation facilities, such as the recent London bombings.
The Kennedy-Coleman-Kyl legislation fills these gaps by expanding the
hoax statute to punish hoaxes involving any offense included on the
U.S. Code's official list of federal terrorist offenses. Specifically,
this bill: expands on the current terrorism hoax statute so this
punishes hoaxes about any terrorist offense on the U.S. Code's official
list of terrorist offenses; increases the maximum penalties for hoaxes
about the death or injury of a U.S. soldier during wartime; expands
current law's civil liability provisions to allow first responders and
others to seek reimbursement from a party who perpetrates a hoax and
becomes aware that first responders believe that a terrorist offense is
taking place but fails to inform authorities that no such event has
occurred; and clarifies that threatening communications are punishable
under federal law even if they are directed at an organization rather
than a natural person.
The bill increases the penalties for perpetrating a hoax about the
death, injury, or capture of a U.S. soldier during wartime. Under the
bill, the maximum penalty for such hoax would be 10 years'
imprisonment, and a hoax resulting in serious bodily injury could be
punished by up to 25 years' imprisonment. I urge my colleagues to pass
this bipartisan measure.
______

By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. Smith):
S. 736. A bill to provide for the regulation and Oversight of
laboratory tests; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it's a privilege to join Senator Smith
today to introduce the Laboratory Test Improvement Act. Our goal is to
ensure the quality of clinical tests used every day in hospitals and
doctors' offices across the country. Physicians often base medical
decisions on the results of such tests, and patients deserve confidence
that they will not be wrongly diagnosed or given the wrong pill because
of a faulty test.
In this era of rapid progression in the life sciences, we are
learning more and more about the human genome and the genetic basis of
disease. Genetic tests are now available for over a thousand different
diseases, and the number is continuing to grow. The tests are being
used to diagnose illnesses, predict who is most susceptible to specific
diseases, and identify persons who carry a genetic disease that they
could pass on to their children.
Today, doctors often apply different treatments until they find one
that is effective and safe for a patient. But such a trial and error
strategy often delays effective treatment and may well cause avoidable
adverse events. In many cases today, however, clinical tests can enable
doctors to avoid such errors. Through personalized medicine and the use
of newly developed genetic tests, doctors are able to give a particular
drug only to patients in whom it is very likely to be effective and
safe, and can avoid giving it to patients who might suffer an adverse
reaction.
As additional technologies are developed and our knowledge increases,
clinical testing will become more and more important in guiding medical
decisions, and it is essential for us to see that the tests meet a high
standard. We know, however, that patients have received the wrong
results from some tests. In some cases, the claims associated with
genetic tests are clearly dubious.
Last year, Senator Smith chaired a hearing by the Special Committee
on Aging on a GAO report, which found that some genetic tests sold to
the public have no scientific merit. Our legislation will give health
providers and

[[Page S2503]]

patients the best possible information about the analytical and
clinical validity of all clinical tests. It is our responsibility to
guarantee that such tests are accurate and reliable, and I urge our
colleagues to support it.
______

By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 737. A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in order to
measure, compare, and improve the quality of voter access to polls and
voter services in the administration of Federal elections in the
States; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President. I am proud to introduce the Voter Advocate
and Democracy Index Act of 2007 with the goal of having the Act help
inform voters and State officials on how well their States are doing on
a basic set of procedural standards for making polls accessible to
voters and making the right to vote as easy to exercise as possible.
The Act would establish an Office of the Voter Advocate within the
Election Assistance Commission that would be charged with creating a
Democracy Index. The Index would rank States according to a system of
measurable, basic state election practices. With that information,
States could identify weak spots in their process, and voters could
push for better performance.
The concept is based on a proposal that Yale Law School Professor
Heather Gerken published this January in Legal Times. It focuses on
issues that matter to all voters: How long did voters spend in line?
How many ballots got discarded? How often did the balloting machinery
break down?
The Act would constitute an important first step toward improving the
health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that
have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters
improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of
process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we
will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that
paralyzed the Nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But
to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better,
nonpartisan, objective information.
This bill would provide that information. Some voters have personally
experienced problems in casting a ballot; others see stories on the
news about election results tainted by malfunctioning machines,
inadequate registration lists, or poorly trained administrators. I
believe that these issues are merely the visible symptoms of a deeper,
systemic problem in the way our election system is run. But voters need
a yardstick for evaluating the full extent of the problem and what
needs to be done to improve the election process in their State.
Toward that end, this bill would charge the Office of the Voter
Advocate with creating the Democracy Index and specifying the success
or failure of States in meeting the criteria that the index is going to
measure. The bill also ensures that the Office of the Voter Advocate
will draw upon the experience and knowledge of experts and citizens in
thinking about what information voters would want to know in evaluating
the health of their State's election process. And it requires the
Office to establish a pilot program for the 2008 election, use the
lessons learned from that experience, and make the Index a reality
nationwide as soon as possible.
The Democracy Index would encourage healthy competition among States
to improve their systems. It would allow states to engage in healthy
experimentation about how best to run an election. In short, the
Democracy Index will empower voters and encourage States to work toward
the goal we all share: an election system that makes us all proud.
______

By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Kerry, and Mr.
Coleman):
S. 738. A bill to amend the Small Business Act to improve the Office
of International Trade, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as I come to the floor today to speak,
there are countless small businesses in the Gulf Coast, right this
moment, that are open for business. The fact that they are open at all
is a testament to the hard work and resolve of their owners, along with
the focus and commitment of community leaders, state and local
officials, as well as Congress and the White House. This is because, as
you know, the Gulf Coast was devastated in 2005 by two of the most
powerful storms to ever hit the United States in recorded history--
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
I strongly believe that we cannot rebuild the Gulf Coast without our
small businesses. Small businesses not only create jobs and pay taxes--
they provide the innovation and energy that drives our economy. In
fact, before Katrina and Rita hit, there were more than 95,000 small
businesses in Louisiana, employing about 850,000 people--more than half
of my State's workforce. About 39,000 of these businesses have yet to
resume normal operations so I intend to do everything I can in the
coming months to get them back up and running.
That is why today I am introducing legislation to first help small
businesses in the Gulf recover, as well as to provide assistance to
businesses in other parts of the country. In particular, this
legislation is focused on promoting exports by U.S. small businesses.
Small businesses are important players in international trade, which is
reflected in the fact that small businesses represent that 96 percent
of all exporters of goods and services. In Louisiana, we have about
2,000 declared exporters. However, there are many more businesses in my
State who conduct Internet sales overseas, as well as those who focus
operations on domestic sales but have some international buyers as
well. These businesses are exporters but in many cases they do not even
realize it!
Given the importance of these exporters to my state and to the rest
of the country, I would like to improve their competitive edge in the
international market and give them every resource they need to succeed.
Certainly my first priority is to provide additional assistance to
affected Gulf Coast small businesses. As they continue to recover, one
of the main issues being faced by our small business is accessing
capital. Our exporters are no different. They need help accessing
export financing to cover export-related costs such as purchasing
equipment, purchasing inventory, or financing production costs. This
legislation would help strengthen the SBA International Finance
Specialist program to help these small businesses access export
financing.
Today I am introducing the Small Business International Trade
Enhancements Act of 2007 to give all small businesses the opportunity
to expand their operations into international markets. I am pleased to
have Senator Kerry, the Chair of the Senate Small Business Committee,
as well as Senator Snowe, the Ranking Member, and my colleague Senator
Coleman, as cosponsors.
As I mentioned we have 2,000 exporters in Louisiana. However, there
are many other businesses who are exporters, but they do not even
realize it. They may have overseas Internet sales, or they focus
operations on domestic sales, but have some international buyers as
well. In fact, the Small Business Administration has stated that over
96 percent of all exporters of goods and services are small businesses.
Given the importance of these exporters to my State and to the rest
of the Gulf Coast, I would like to improve their competitive edge in
the international market and give them every resource they need to
succeed. As they continue to recover, one of the main issues being
faced by our small business is accessing capital. Our exporters are no
different. They need help accessing export financing to cover export-
related costs such as purchasing equipment, purchasing inventory, or
financing production costs.
To assist these businesses, fifteen SBA Finance Specialists operate
out of 100 U.S. Export Assistance Centers administered by the
Department of Commerce around the country. That is a record staffing
low for this program, down from a peak of 22 Finance Specialists in
2000. To ensure that all smaller exporters nationwide will continue to
have access to export financing, this bill establishes a floor of 18
International Finance Specialists. I believe this will send a signal to
our exporters that, despite current budget

[[Page S2504]]

deficits, we are committed to our exporters and want to provide them
with the necessary resources to compete internationally.
I realize that the need for export financing is not just limited to
the Gulf Coast. There are small businesses nationwide that are looking
to find markets overseas. One tool that they can use is the SBA's
International Trade Loan (ITL) program. International Trade Loans can
help exporters develop and expand overseas markets; upgrade equipment
or facilities; and assist exporters that are being hurt by import
competition. Exporters can borrow up to $2 million, with $1,750,000
guaranteed by SBA.
However, as currently structured these loans are not user-friendly to
lenders or borrowers and, as a result, are underutilized. Let me
explain what I mean. First, the $250,000 difference between the loan
cap and the guarantee requires borrowers to take out a second SBA loan
to take full advantage of the $2 million guarantee. ITLs can only be
used to acquire fixed assets and not working capital, a common need for
exporters. Furthermore, ITLs do not have the same collateral or
refinancing requirements as SBA 7(a) loans. Because of these issues,
lenders do not use these loans.
This legislation will also reduce the paperwork by increasing the
maximum loan guarantee to $2,750,000 and the loan cap to $3,670,000 to
bring it more in line with the 7(a) program. The bill also creates a
more flexible ITL by setting out that working capital is an eligible
use for loan proceeds, in addition to making the ITL consistent with
regular 7(a) loans by allowing the same collateral and refinancing
terms as with 7(a).
The SBA International Trade and Export Loans are valuable tools for
exporters but they are useless if there is no one to assist borrowers
with identifying which loans are right for them. Local lending
institutions that specialize in export financing can help but at a cost
over less than $2 million per year, the current group of Finance
Specialists has obtained bank financing for more than $10 billion in
U.S. exports since 1999. The $10 billion in export sales financed by
these specialists helped to create over 140,000 new, high-paying U.S.
jobs.
The Small Business International Trade Enhancements Act of 2007 is an
important first step, not just for exporters in the Gulf Coast, but
also for small businesses nationwide who are looking to open markets
overseas. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation since it
will help our exporters in the Gulf Coast recover and also give small
businesses nationwide more options when they are seeking export
financing.
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. 738

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 ``Small Business International
Trade Enhancements Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR
FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

(a) Establishment.--Section 22(a) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 649(a)) is amended by adding at the end the
following: ``The head of the Office shall be the Associate
Administrator for International Trade, who shall be
responsible to the Administrator.''.
(b) Authority for Additional Associate Administrator.--
Section 4(b)(1) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
633(b)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the fifth sentence, by striking ``five Associate
Administrators'' and inserting ``Associate Administrators'';
and
(2) by adding at the end the following: ``One of the
Associate Administrators shall be the Associate Administrator
for International Trade, who shall be the head of the Office
of International Trade established under section 22.''.
(c) Discharge of Administration International Trade
Responsibilities.--Section 22 of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 649) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(h) Discharge of Administration International Trade
Responsibilities.--The Administrator shall ensure that--
``(1) the responsibilities of the Administration regarding
international trade are carried out through the Associate
Administrator for International Trade;
``(2) the Associate Administrator for International Trade
has sufficient resources to carry out such responsibilities;
and
``(3) the Associate Administrator for International Trade
has direct supervision and control over the staff of the
Office of International Trade, and over any employee of the
Administration whose principal duty station is a United
States Export Assistance Center or any successor entity.''.
(d) Role of Associate Administrator in Carrying Out
International Trade Policy.--Section 2(b)(1) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631(b)(1)) is amended in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A)--
(1) by inserting ``the Administrator of'' before ``the
Small Business Administration''; and
(2) by inserting ``through the Associate Administrator for
International Trade, and'' before ``in cooperation with''.
(e) Technical Amendment.--Section 22(c)(5) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 649(c)(5)) is amended by striking the
period at the end and inserting a semicolon.
(f) Effective Date.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Small
Business Administration shall appoint an Associate
Administrator for International Trade under section 22 of the
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 649), as amended by this
section.

SEC. 3. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

Section 22 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 649) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``SEC. 22. (a) There'' and inserting the
following:

``SEC. 22. OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE.

``(a) Establishment.--There''.
(2) in subsection (a), by inserting ``(referred to in this
section as the `Office'),'' after ``Trade'';
(3) in subsection (b)--
(A) by striking ``The Office'' and inserting the following:
``(b) Trade Distribution Network.--The Office, including
United States Export Assistance Centers (referred to as `one-
stop shops' in section 2301(b)(8) of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4721(b)(8)) and as
`export centers' in this section)''; and
(B) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
``(1) assist in maintaining a distribution network using
regional and local offices of the Administration, the small
business development center network, the women's business
center network, and export centers for--
``(A) trade promotion;
``(B) trade finance;
``(C) trade adjustment;
``(D) trade remedy assistance; and
``(E) trade data collection.'';
(4) in subsection (c)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (8) as
paragraphs (2) through (9), respectively;
(B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as so redesignated,
the following:
``(1) establish annual goals for the Office relating to--
``(A) enhancing the exporting capability of small business
concerns and small manufacturers;
``(B) facilitating technology transfers;
``(C) enhancing programs and services to assist small
business concerns and small manufacturers to compete
effectively and efficiently against foreign entities;
``(D) increasing the access to capital by small business
concerns;
``(E) disseminating information concerning Federal, State,
and private programs and initiatives; and
``(F) ensuring that the interests of small business
concerns are adequately represented in trade negotiations;'';
(C) in paragraph (2), as so redesignated, by striking
``mechanism for'' and all that follows through ``(D)'' and
inserting the following: ``mechanism for--
``(A) identifying subsectors of the small business
community with strong export potential;
``(B) identifying areas of demand in foreign markets;
``(C) prescreening foreign buyers for commercial and credit
purposes; and
``(D)''; and
(D) in paragraph (9), as so redesignated--
(i) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)--

(I) by striking ``full-time export development specialists
to each Administration regional office and assigning''; and
(II) by striking ``office. Such specialists'' and inserting
``office and providing each Administration regional office
with a full-time export development specialist, who'';

(ii) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(iii) in subparagraph (E), by striking the period at the
end and inserting a semicolon; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(F) participate jointly with employees of the Office in
an annual training program that focuses on current small
business needs for exporting; and
``(G) jointly develop and conduct training programs for
exporters and lenders in cooperation with the United States
Export Assistance Centers, the Department of Commerce, small
business development centers, and other relevant Federal
agencies.'';
(5) in subsection (d)--
(A) by inserting ``Export Financing Programs.--'' after
``(d)'';

[[Page S2505]]

(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (5) as clauses
(i) through (v), respectively, and adjusting the margins
accordingly;
(C) by striking ``The Office shall work in cooperation''
and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Office shall work in cooperation'';
and
(D) by striking ``To accomplish this goal, the Office shall
work'' and inserting the following:
``(2) Trade financial specialist.--To accomplish the goal
established under paragraph (1), the Office shall--
``(A) designate at least 1 individual within the
Administration as a trade financial specialist to oversee
international loan programs and assist Administration
employees with trade finance issues; and
``(B) work'';
(6) in subsection (e), by inserting ``Trade Remedies.--''
after ``(e)'';
(7) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
``(f) Reporting Requirement.--The Office shall submit an
annual report to the Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship of the Senate and the Committee on Small
Business of the House of Representatives that contains--
``(1) a description of the progress of the Office in
implementing the requirements of this section;
``(2) the destinations of travel by Office staff and
benefits to the Administration and to small business concerns
therefrom; and
``(3) a description of the participation by the Office in
trade negotiations.'';
(8) in subsection (g), by inserting ``Studies.--'' after
``(g)''; and
(9) by adding at the end the following:
``(i) Export Assistance Centers.--
``(1) In general.--During the period beginning on October
1, 2006, and ending on September 30, 2009, the Administrator
shall ensure that the number of full-time equivalent
employees of the Office assigned to the one-stop shops
referred to in section 2301(b) of the Omnibus Trade and
Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4721 (b)) is not less
than the number of such employees so assigned on January 1,
2003.
``(2) Priority of placement.--Priority shall be given, to
the maximum extent practicable, to placing employees of the
Administration at any Export Assistance Center that--
``(A) had an Administration employee assigned to such
Center before January 2003; and
``(B) has not had an Administration employee assigned to
such Center during the period beginning January 2003, and
ending on the date of enactment of this subsection, either
through retirement or reassignment.
``(3) Needs of exporters.--The Administrator shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, strategically assign
Administration employees to Export Assistance Centers, based
on the needs of exporters.
``(4) Goals.--The Office shall work with the Department of
Commerce and the Export-Import Bank to establish shared
annual goals for the Export Centers.
``(5) Oversight.--The Office shall designate an individual
within the Administration to oversee all activities conducted
by Administration employees assigned to Export Centers.''.

SEC. 4. INTERNATIONAL TRADE LOANS.

(a) In General.--Section 7(a)(3)(B) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking
``$1,750,000, of which not more than $1,250,000'' and
inserting ``$2,750,000 (or if the gross loan amount would
exceed $3,670,000), of which not more than $2,000,000''.
(b) Working Capital.--Section 7(a)(16)(A) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(16)(A)) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding clause (i), by striking ``in--
'' and inserting ``--'';
(2) in clause (i)--
(A) by inserting ``in'' after ``(i)''; and
(B) by striking ``or'' at the end;
(3) in clause (ii)--
(A) by inserting ``in'' after ``(ii)''; and
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``; or''; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) by providing working capital.''.
(c) Collateral.--Section 7(a)(16)(B) of the Small Business
Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(16)(B)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``Each loan'' and inserting the following:
``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), each
loan''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(ii) Exception.--A loan under this paragraph may be
secured by a second lien position on the property or
equipment financed by the loan or on other assets of the
small business concern, if the Administrator determines such
lien provides adequate assurance of the payment of such
loan.''.
(d) Refinancing.--Section 7(a)(16)(A)(ii) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(16)(A)(ii)), as amended by
this section, is amended by inserting ``, including any debt
that qualifies for refinancing under any other provision of
this subsection'' before the semicolon.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Kerry,
Ms. Cantwell, and Mrs. Lincoln):
S. 739. A bill to provide disadvantaged children with access to
dental services; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am reintroducing legislation
entitled the Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2007, along
with several of my colleagues. This legislation is designed to improve
the access and delivery of dental health services to our Nation's
children through Medicaid, through the State Children's Health
Insurance Program, SCHIP, through the Indian Health Services, or IHS,
and also through our Nation's safety net of community health centers.
The oral health problems facing children in this country are
widespread. They are closely associated with poverty. Tooth decay
remains the single most common childhood disease nationwide. Although
poor children are more than twice as likely to have cavities as
wealthier children, experts report that they are far less likely to
receive treatment. The dramatic consequences of this lack of oral
health care were underscored yesterday in the Washington Post article
discussing the death of 12-year-old Deamonte Driver from complications
arising from a lack of dental care. I know Senator Cardin has spoken on
this same tragic incident.
A little over a month ago, Deamonte Driver came home complaining of a
toothache. Today, that young man is dead. What began as a simple
toothache developed into an abscessed tooth and, eventually, a brain
infection that killed him. Although his family attempted to access
care, they could not acquire meaningful oral health services either
when they were on the Medicaid Program or while they were uninsured.
While this young man's death is shocking, the lack of access to
dental care that it reflects is not unusual. The inspector general of
the Department of Health and Human Services reported that only 18
percent of the children who are eligible for Medicaid actually received
even a single preventive dental service. The inspector general also
reports that there is no State in the Union that provides preventive
services to more than 50 percent of the eligible children. The factors
are complex, but the primary one is due to the limited participation by
dentists in the Medicaid Program because of the very low reimbursement
rates that are provided. Such issues played a central role in the death
of this young man.
The Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2007 provides a
comprehensive strategy to address the underlying oral health issues
that led to Deamonte's death. First, the legislation provides grants to
States to improve dental services to children enrolled in Medicaid and
SCHIP. Such grants will not only assure improved delivery of dental
services to children but also improved payment rates for dental
services that are provided through those two programs. The bill will
also include grants to federally qualified health centers, to county
and local public health departments, to dental schools, Indian tribes,
tribal corporation organizations, and others to increase the
availability of primary dental care services in underserved areas.
The bill also provides critical bonus payments to dentists within the
Indian Health Service who commit to work there for 2, 3, or 4 years.
The legislation also ensures SCHIP funds will be utilized to provide
coverage for dental services for low-income children who have access to
limited health insurance coverage that does not include dental
services. This is known as wraparound coverage, and it is crucial that
we provide for this.
In addition, the bill would make important changes to the way in
which dental residents are counted for Medicare graduate medical
education or GME purposes to incentivize dental schools to train a
larger number of dentists.
Finally, the legislation also creates a comprehensive oral health
initiative aimed at reducing oral health disparities for vulnerable
populations such as low-income children and children with developmental
disabilities. Such activities will be administered through the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease
Control, and a newly established chief dental officer for Medicaid and
SCHIP. Such activities will also include school-based dental sealant
programs as well as basic oral health promotion.

[[Page S2506]]

I introduce the legislation in the hope that this Congress will act
this year to ensure that Deamonte's death does not repeat itself, that
no more of America's children will suffer needlessly or even, as in
this case, die as a result of a lack of access to meaningful oral
health care. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join me in
supporting this important legislation.
I would like to thank the American Dental Association, the American
Dental Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatric
Dentistry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc.,
the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Dental
Hygienists' Association, and the Children's Dental Health Project for
their outstanding support and/or their technical advice on this
legislation. This bill is a result of their outstanding work.
In particular, I want to thank Dr. Burt Edelstein, Libby Mullin, and
Ann De Biasi of the Children's Dental Health Project for their vast
knowledge and technical assistance on this issue. I want to thank Judy
Sherman of the American Dental Association, Myla Moss and Jack Bresch
of the American Dental Education Association, Dr. Herber Simmons and
Scott Litch of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Karen
Sealander of the American Dental Hygienists' Association, Dr. Jim
Richeson and Judy Kloss Bynum of the Academy of General Dentistry, Dr.
Stephen Corbin of Special Olympics, Inc., and Dan Hawkins, Chris
Koppen, and Roger Schwartz of the National Association of Community
Health Centers, Inc., for their valuable insight, technical advice, and
continued support for this legislation. I look forward to working with
them all to ensure that we achieve increased access to oral health care
for our children.

In addition to those organizations, I would like to thank the
following groups for their support of the bill, whether in the past
session of Congress or this year. They include: the Academy of General
Dentistry, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, American Academy
of Periodontology, American Association of Dental Examiners, American
Association of Dental Research, American Association of Endodontists,
American Association of Public Health Dentistry, American Association
of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Association of
Orthodontists, American Association of Women Dentists, American College
of Dentists, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Dental
Trade Association, American Public Health Association, American Society
of Dentistry for Children, American Student Dental Association,
Association of Clinicians for the Underserved, Association of Maternal
and Child Health Programs, Association of State and Territorial Dental
Directors, Dental Dealers of America, Dental Manufacturers of America,
Inc., Family Voices, Hispanic Dental Association, International College
of Dentists--USA, March of Dimes, National Association of City and
County Health Officers, National Association of Local Boards of Health,
National Dental Association, National Health Law Program, New Mexico
Department of Health, Partnership for Prevention, Society of American
Indian Dentists, Special Care Dentistry, and United Cerebral Palsy
Associations.
I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article and the text
of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2007]

For Want of a Dentist

(By Mary Otto)

Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday.
A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him.
If his mother had been insured.
If his family had not lost its Medicaid.
If Medicaid dentists weren't so hard to find.
If his mother hadn't been focused on getting a dentist for
his brother, who had six rotted teeth.
By the time Deamonte's own aching tooth got any attention,
the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain,
doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of
hospital care, the Prince George's County boy died.
Deamonte's death and the ultimate cost of his care, which
could total more than $250,000, underscore an often-
overlooked concern in the debate over universal health
coverage: dental care.
Some poor children have no dental coverage at all. Others
travel three hours to find a dentist willing to take Medicaid
patients and accept the incumbent paperwork. And some,
including Deamonte's brother, get in for a tooth cleaning but
have trouble securing an oral surgeon to fix deeper problems.
In spite of efforts to change the system, fewer than one in
three children in Maryland's Medicaid program received any
dental service at all in 2005, the latest year for which
figures are available from the Federal Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services.
The figures were worse elsewhere in the region. In the
District, 29.3 percent got treatment, and in Virginia, 24.3
percent were treated, although all three jurisdictions say
they have done a better job reaching children in recent
years.
``I certainly hope the state agencies responsible for
making sure these children have dental care take note so that
Deamonte didn't die in vain,'' said Laurie Norris, a lawyer
for the Baltimore-based Public Justice Center who tried to
help the Driver family. ``They know there is a problem, and
they have not devoted adequate resources to solving it.''
Maryland officials emphasize that the delivery of basic
care has improved greatly since 1997, when the state
instituted a managed care program, and 1998, when legislation
that provided more money and set standards for access to
dental care for poor children was enacted.
About 900 of the state's 5,500 dentists accept Medicaid
patients, said Arthur Fridley, last year's president of the
Maryland State Dental Association. Referring patients to
specialists can be particularly difficult.
Fewer than 16 percent of Maryland's Medicaid children
received restorative services--such as filling cavities--in
2005, the most recent year for which figures are available.
For families such as the Drivers, the systemic problems are
often compounded by personal obstacles: lack of
transportation, bouts of homelessness and erratic telephone
and mail service.
The Driver children have never received routine dental
attention, said their mother, Alyce Driver. The bakery,
construction and home health-care jobs she has held have not
provided insurance. The children's Medicaid coverage had
temporarily lapsed at the time Deamonte was hospitalized. And
even with Medicaid's promise of dental care, the problem, she
said, was finding it.
When Deamonte got sick, his mother had not realized that
his tooth had been bothering him. Instead, she was focusing
on his younger brother, 10-year-old DaShawn, who ``complains
about his teeth all the time,'' she said.
DaShawn saw a dentist a couple of years ago, but the
dentist discontinued the treatments, she said, after the boy
squirmed too much in the chair. Then the family went through
a crisis and spent some time in an Adelphi homeless shelter.
From there, three of Driver's sons went to stay with their
grandparents in a two-bedroom mobile home in Clinton.
By September, several of DaShawn's teeth had become
abscessed. Driver began making calls about the boy's coverage
but grew frustrated. She turned to Norris, who was working
with homeless families in Prince George's.
Norris and her staff also ran into barriers: They said they
made more than two dozen calls before reaching an official at
the Driver family's Medicaid provider and a state supervising
nurse who helped them find a dentist.
On Oct. 5, DaShawn saw Arthur Fridley, who cleaned the
boy's teeth, took an X-ray and referred him to an oral
surgeon. But the surgeon could not see him until Nov. 21, and
that would be only for a consultation. Driver said she
learned that DaShawn would need six teeth extracted and made
an appointment for the earliest date available: Jan. 16.
But she had to cancel after learning Jan. 8 that the
children had lost their Medicaid coverage a month earlier.
She suspects that the paperwork to confirm their eligibility
was mailed to the shelter in Adelphi, where they no longer
live.
It was on Jan. 11 that Deamonte came home from school
complaining of a headache. At Southern Maryland Hospital
Center, his mother said, he got medicine for a headache,
sinusitis and a dental abscess. But the next day, he was much
sicker.
Eventually, he was rushed to Children's Hospital, where he
underwent emergency brain surgery. He began to have seizures
and had a second operation. The problem tooth was extracted.
After more than 2 weeks of care at Children's Hospital, the
Clinton seventh-grader began undergoing 6 weeks of additional
medical treatment as well as physical and occupational
therapy at another hospital. He seemed to be mending slowly,
doing math problems and enjoying visits with his brothers and
teachers from his school, the Foundation School in Largo.
On Saturday, their last day together, Deamonte refused to
eat but otherwise appeared happy, his mother said. They
played cards and watched a show on television, lying together
in his hospital bed. But after she left him that evening, he
called her.
``Make sure you pray before you go to sleep,'' he told her.
The next morning at about 6, she got another call, this
time from the boy's grandmother. Deamonte was unresponsive.
She rushed back to the hospital.

[[Page S2507]]

``When I got there, my baby was gone,'' recounted his
mother.
She said doctors are still not sure what happened to her
son. His death certificate listed two conditions associated
with brain infections: ``meningoencephalitis'' and ``subdural
empyema.''
In spite of such modern innovations as the fluoridation of
drinking water, tooth decay is still the single most common
childhood disease nationwide, five times as common as asthma,
experts say. Poor children are more than twice as likely to
have cavities as their more affluent peers, research shows,
but far less likely to get treatment.
Serious and costly medical consequences are ``not
uncommon,'' said Norman Tinanoff, chief of pediatric
dentistry at the University of Maryland Dental School in
Baltimore. For instance, Deamonte's bill for two weeks at
Children's alone was expected to be between $200,000 and
$250,000.
The federal government requires states to provide oral
health services to children through Medicaid programs, but
the shortage of dentists who will treat indigent patients
remains a major barrier to care, according to the National
Conference of State Legislatures.
Access is worst in rural areas, where some families travel
hours for dental care, Tinanoff said. In the Maryland General
Assembly this year, lawmakers are considering a bill that
would set aside $2 million a year for the next three years to
expand public clinics where dental care remains a rarity for
the poor.
Providing such access, Tinanoff and others said, eventually
pays for itself, sparing children the pain and expense of a
medical crisis.
Reimbursement rates for dentists remain low nationally,
although Maryland, Virginia and the District have increased
their rates in recent years.
Dentists also cite administrative frustrations dealing with
the Medicaid bureaucracy and the difficulties of serving
poor, often transient patients, a study by the state
legislatures conference found.
``Whatever we've got is broke,'' Fridley said. ``It has
nothing to do with access to care for these children.''
____

S. 739

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Children's
Dental Health Improvement Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents

TITLE I--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID
AND SCHIP

Sec. 101. Grants to improve the provision of dental services under
medicaid and SCHIP
Sec. 102. State option to provide wrap-around SCHIP coverage to
children who have other health coverage

TITLE II--CORRECTING GME PAYMENTS FOR DENTAL RESIDENCY TRAINING
PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Limitation on the application of the 1-year lag in the
indirect medical education ratio (IME) changes and the 3-
year rolling average for counting interns and residents
for IME and direct graduate medical education (D-GME)
payments under the medicare program

TITLE III--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, AND THE INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE

Sec. 301. Grants to improve the provision of dental health services
through community health centers and public health
departments
Sec. 302. Dental officer multiyear retention bonus for the Indian
Health Service
Sec. 303. Demonstration projects to increase access to pediatric dental
services in underserved areas
Sec. 304. Technical correction

TITLE IV--IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION
PROGRAMS

Sec. 401. Oral health initiative
Sec. 402. CDC reports
Sec. 403. Early childhood caries
Sec. 404. School-based dental sealant program
Sec. 405. Basic oral health promotion

TITLE I--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID
AND SCHIP

SEC. 101. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF DENTAL SERVICES
UNDER MEDICAID AND SCHIP.

Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.)
is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 511. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF DENTAL
SERVICES UNDER MEDICAID AND SCHIP.

``(a) Authority to Make Grants.--In addition to any other
payments made under this title to a State, the Secretary
shall award grants to States that satisfy the requirements of
subsection (b) to improve the provision of dental services to
children who are enrolled in a State plan under title XIX or
a State child health plan under title XXI (in this section,
collectively referred to as the `State plans').
``(b) Requirements.--In order to be eligible for a grant
under this section, a State shall provide the Secretary with
the following assurances:
``(1) Improved service delivery.--The State shall have a
plan to improve the delivery of dental services to children,
including children with special health care needs, who are
enrolled in the State plans, including providing outreach and
administrative case management, improving collection and
reporting of claims data, and providing incentives, in
addition to raising reimbursement rates, to increase provider
participation.
``(2) Adequate payment rates.--The State has provided for
payment under the State plans for dental services for
children at levels consistent with the market-based rates and
sufficient enough to enlist providers to treat children in
need of dental services.
``(3) Ensured access.--The State shall ensure it will make
dental services available to children enrolled in the State
plans to the same extent as such services are available to
the general population of the State.
``(c) Use of Funds.--
``(1) In general.--Funds provided under this section may be
used to provide administrative resources (such as program
development, provider training, data collection and analysis,
and research-related tasks) to assist States in providing and
assessing services that include preventive and therapeutic
dental care regimens.
``(2) Limitation.--Funds provided under this section may
not be used for payment of direct dental, medical, or other
services or to obtain Federal matching funds under any
Federal program.
``(d) Application.--A State shall submit an application to
the Secretary for a grant under this section in such form and
manner and containing such information as the Secretary may
require.
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to make grants under this
section $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and each fiscal year
thereafter.
``(f) Application of Other Provisions of Title.--
``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
other provisions of this title shall not apply to a grant
made under this section.
``(2) Exceptions.--The following provisions of this title
shall apply to a grant made under subsection (a) to the same
extent and in the same manner as such provisions apply to
allotments made under section 502(c):
``(A) Section 504(b)(6) (relating to prohibition on
payments to excluded individuals and entities).
``(B) Section 504(c) (relating to the use of funds for the
purchase of technical assistance).
``(C) Section 504(d) (relating to a limitation on
administrative expenditures).
``(D) Section 506 (relating to reports and audits), but
only to the extent determined by the Secretary to be
appropriate for grants made under this section.
``(E) Section 507 (relating to penalties for false
statements).
``(F) Section 508 (relating to nondiscrimination).
``(G) Section 509 (relating to the administration of the
grant program).''.

SEC. 102. STATE OPTION TO PROVIDE WRAP-AROUND SCHIP COVERAGE
TO CHILDREN WHO HAVE OTHER HEALTH COVERAGE.

(a) In General.--
(1) SCHIP.--
(A) State option to provide wrap-around coverage.--Section
2110(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397jj(b)) is
amended--
(i) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ``, subject to
paragraph (5),'' after ``under title XIX or''; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) State option to provide wrap-around coverage.--A
State may waive the requirement of paragraph (1)(C) that a
targeted low-income child may not be covered under a group
health plan or under health insurance coverage, if the State
satisfies the conditions described in subsection (c)(8). The
State may waive such requirement in order to provide--
``(A) dental services;
``(B) cost-sharing protection; or
``(C) all services.
In waiving such requirement, a State may limit the
application of the waiver to children whose family income
does not exceed a level specified by the State, so long as
the level so specified does not exceed the maximum income
level otherwise established for other children under the
State child health plan.''.
(B) Conditions described.--Section 2105(c) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397ee(c)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(8) Conditions for provision of wrap-around coverage.--
For purposes of section 2110(b)(5), the conditions described
in this paragraph are the following:
``(A) Income eligibility.--The State child health plan
(whether implemented under title XIX or this XXI)--
``(i) has the highest income eligibility standard permitted
under this title as of January 1, 2008;
``(ii) subject to subparagraph (B), does not limit the
acceptance of applications for children; and

[[Page S2508]]

``(iii) provides benefits to all children in the State who
apply for and meet eligibility standards.
``(B) No waiting list imposed.--With respect to children
whose family income is at or below 200 percent of the poverty
line, the State does not impose any numerical limitation,
waiting list, or similar limitation on the eligibility of
such children for child health assistance under such State
plan.
``(C) No more favorable treatment.--The State child health
plan may not provide more favorable coverage of dental
services to the children covered under section 2110(b)(5)
than to children otherwise covered under this title.''.
(C) State option to waive waiting period.--Section
2102(b)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397bb(b)(1)(B)) is amended--
(i) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) at State option, may not apply a waiting period in
the case of a child described in section 2110(b)(5), if the
State satisfies the requirements of section 2105(c)(8).''.
(2) Application of enhanced match under medicaid.--Section
1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d) is
amended--
(A) in subsection (b), in the fourth sentence, by striking
``or subsection (u)(3)'' and inserting ``(u)(3), or (u)(4)'';
and
(B) in subsection (u)--
(i) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(ii) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) For purposes of subsection (b), the expenditures
described in this paragraph are expenditures for items and
services for children described in section 2110(b)(5), but
only in the case of a State that satisfies the requirements
of section 2105(c)(8).''.
(3) Application of secondary payor provisions.--Section
2107(e)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1397gg(e)(1)) is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as
subparagraphs (C) through (E), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following:
``(B) Section 1902(a)(25) (relating to coordination of
benefits and secondary payor provisions) with respect to
children covered under a waiver described in section
2110(b)(5).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on January 1, 2008, and shall apply to
child health assistance and medical assistance provided on or
after that date.

TITLE II--CORRECTING GME PAYMENTS FOR DENTAL RESIDENCY TRAINING
PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. LIMITATION ON THE APPLICATION OF THE 1-YEAR LAG IN
THE INDIRECT MEDICAL EDUCATION RATIO (IME)
CHANGES AND THE 3-YEAR ROLLING AVERAGE FOR
COUNTING INTERNS AND RESIDENTS FOR IME AND
DIRECT GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION (D-GME)
PAYMENTS UNDER THE MEDICARE PROGRAM.

(a) IME Ratio and Rolling Average.--Section
1886(d)(5)(B)(vi) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
1395ww(d)(5)(B)(vi)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new sentence: ``For cost reporting periods
beginning during fiscal years beginning on or after October
1, 2007, subclauses (I) and (II) shall be applied only with
respect to a hospital's approved medical residency training
program in the fields of allopathic medicine and osteopathic
medicine.''.
(b) D-GME Rolling Average.--Section 1886(h)(4)(G) of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ww(h)(4)(G)) is amended by
adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iv) Application for fy 2008 and subsequent years.--For
cost reporting periods beginning during fiscal years
beginning on or after October 1, 2007, clauses (i) through
(iii) shall be applied only with respect to a hospital's
approved medical residency training program in the fields of
allopathic medicine and osteopathic medicine.''.

TITLE III--IMPROVING DELIVERY OF PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES UNDER
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS, PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS, AND THE INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE

SEC. 301. GRANTS TO IMPROVE THE PROVISION OF DENTAL HEALTH
SERVICES THROUGH COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS AND
PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENTS.

Subpart I of part D of title III of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b et seq.) is amended by insert
before section 330, the following:

``SEC. 329. GRANT PROGRAM TO EXPAND THE AVAILABILITY OF
SERVICES.

``(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the Health
Resources and Services Administration, shall establish a
program under which the Secretary may award grants to
eligible entities and eligible individuals to expand the
availability of primary dental care services in dental health
professional shortage areas or medically underserved areas.
``(b) Eligibility.--
``(1) Entities.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section an entity--
``(A) shall be--
``(i) a health center receiving funds under section 330 or
designated as a Federally qualified health center;
``(ii) a county or local public health department, if
located in a federally-designated dental health professional
shortage area;
``(iii) an Indian tribe or tribal organization (as defined
in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b));
``(iv) a dental education program accredited by the
Commission on Dental Accreditation; or
``(v) a community-based program whose child service
population is made up of at least 33 percent of children who
are eligible children, including at least 25 percent of such
children being children with mental retardation or related
developmental disabilities, unless specific documentation of
a lack of need for access by this sub-population is
established; and
``(B) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and containing such
information as the Secretary may require, including
information concerning dental provider capacity to serve
individuals with developmental disabilities.
``(2) Individuals.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
this section an individual shall--
``(A) be a dental health professional licensed or certified
in accordance with the laws of State in which such individual
provides dental services;
``(B) prepare and submit to the Secretary an application at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require; and
``(C) provide assurances that--
``(i) the individual will practice in a federally-
designated dental health professional shortage area; or
``(ii) not less than 25 percent of the patients of such
individual are--

``(I) receiving assistance under a State plan under title
XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.);
``(II) receiving assistance under a State plan under title
XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.); or
``(III) uninsured.

``(c) Use of Funds.--
``(1) Entities.--An entity shall use amounts received under
a grant under this section to provide for the increased
availability of primary dental services in the areas
described in subsection (a). Such amounts may be used to
supplement the salaries offered for individuals accepting
employment as dentists in such areas.
``(2) Individuals.--A grant to an individual under
subsection (a) shall be in the form of a $1,000 bonus payment
for each month in which such individual is in compliance with
the eligibility requirements of subsection (b)(2)(C).
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other amounts
appropriated under section 330 for health centers, there is
authorized to be appropriated $40,000,000 for each of fiscal
years 2008 through 2012 to hire and retain dental health care
providers under this section.
``(2) Use of funds.--Of the amount appropriated for a
fiscal year under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall use--
``(A) not less than 65 percent of such amount to make
grants to eligible entities; and
``(B) not more than 35 percent of such amount to make
grants to eligible individuals.''.

SEC. 302. DENTAL OFFICER MULTIYEAR RETENTION BONUS FOR THE
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE.

(a) Terms and Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Creditable service.--The term ``creditable service''
includes all periods that a dental officer spent in graduate
dental educational (GDE) training programs while not on
active duty in the Indian Health Service and all periods of
active duty in the Indian Health Service as a dental officer.
(2) Dental officer.--The term ``dental officer'' means an
officer of the Indian Health Service designated as a dental
officer.
(3) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
the Indian Health Service.
(4) Residency.--The term ``residency'' means a graduate
dental educational (GDE) training program of at least 12
months leading to a specialty, including general practice
residency (GPR) or an advanced education general dentistry
(AEGD).
(5) Specialty.--The term ``specialty'' means a dental
specialty for which there is an Indian Health Service
specialty code number.
(b) Requirements for Bonus.--
(1) In general.--An eligible dental officer of the Indian
Health Service who executes a written agreement to remain on
active duty for 2, 3, or 4 years after the completion of any
other active duty service commitment to the Indian Health
Service may, upon acceptance of the written agreement by the
Director, be authorized to receive a dental officer multiyear
retention bonus under this section. The Director may, based
on requirements of the Indian Health Service, decline to
offer such a retention bonus to any specialty that is
otherwise eligible, or to restrict the length of such a
retention bonus contract for a specialty to less than 4
years.
(2) Limitations.--Each annual dental officer multiyear
retention bonus authorized under this section shall not
exceed the following:
(A) $14,000 for a 4-year written agreement.
(B) $8,000 for a 3-year written agreement.
(C) $4,000 for a 2-year written agreement.
(c) Eligibility.--

[[Page S2509]]

(1) In general.--In order to be eligible to receive a
dental officer multiyear retention bonus under this section,
a dental officer shall--
(A) be at or below such grade as the Director shall
determine;
(B) have completed any active duty service commitment of
the Indian Health Service incurred for dental education and
training or have 8 years of creditable service;
(C) have completed initial residency training, or be
scheduled to complete initial residency training before
September 30 of the fiscal year in which the officer enters
into a dental officer multiyear retention bonus written
service agreement under this section; and
(D) have a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry or oral
and maxillofacial surgery.
(2) Extension to other officers.--The Director may extend
the retention bonus to dental officers other than officers
with a dental specialty in pediatric dentistry, as well as to
other dental hygienists with a minimum of a baccalaureate
degree, based on demonstrated need.
(d) Termination of Entitlement to Special Pay.--The
Director may terminate, with cause, at any time a dental
officer's multiyear retention bonus contract under this
section. If such a contract is terminated, the unserved
portion of the retention bonus contract shall be recouped on
a pro rata basis. The Director shall establish regulations
that specify the conditions and procedures under which
termination may take place. The regulations and conditions
for termination shall be included in the written service
contract for a dental officer multiyear retention bonus under
this section.
(e) Refunds.--
(1) In general.--Prorated refunds shall be required for
sums paid under a retention bonus contract under this section
if a dental officer who has received the retention bonus
fails to complete the total period of service specified in
the contract, as conditions and circumstances warrant.
(2) Debt to united states.--An obligation to reimburse the
United States imposed under paragraph (1) is a debt owed to
the United States.
(3) No discharge in bankruptcy.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, a discharge in bankruptcy under title 11,
United States Code, that is entered less than 5 years after
the termination of a retention bonus contract under this
section does not discharge the dental officer who signed such
a contract from a debt arising under the contract or under
paragraph (1).

SEC. 303. DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS TO INCREASE ACCESS TO
PEDIATRIC DENTAL SERVICES IN UNDERSERVED AREAS.

(a) Authority to Conduct Projects.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services, through the Administrator of the Health
Resources and Services Administration and the Director of the
Indian Health Service, shall establish demonstration projects
that are designed to increase access to dental services for
children in underserved areas, as determined by the
Secretary.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out
this section.

SEC. 304. TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

Section 340G(b)(1)(B) of the Public Health Service Act (42
U.S.C. 256g(b)(1)(B)) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end and inserting ``or''.

TITLE IV--IMPROVING ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION AND DISEASE PREVENTION
PROGRAMS

SEC. 401. ORAL HEALTH INITIATIVE.

(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall establish an oral health initiative to reduce
the profound disparities in oral health by improving the
health status of vulnerable populations, particularly low-
income children and children with developmental disabilities,
to the level of health status that is enjoyed by the majority
of Americans.
(b) Activities.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services
shall, through the oral health initiative--
(1) carry out activities to improve intra- and inter-agency
collaborations, including activities to identify, engage, and
encourage existing Federal and State programs to maximize
their potential to address oral health;
(2) carry out activities to encourage public-private
partnerships to engage private sector communities of interest
(including health professionals, educators, State
policymakers, foundations, business, and the public) in
partnerships that promote oral health and dental care;
(3) carry out activities to reduce the disease burden in
high risk populations through the application of best-science
in oral health, including programs such as community water
fluoridation and dental sealants; and
(4) carry out activities to improve the oral health
literacy of the public through school-based education
programs.
(c) Coordination.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall--
(1) through the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services, establish the Chief Dental Officer for the
medicaid and State children's health insurance programs
established under titles XIX and XXI, respectively, of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. 1397aa et seq.);
(2) through the Administrator of the Health Resources and
Services Administration, establish the Chief Dental Office
for all oral health programs within the Health Resources and
Services Administration;
(3) through the Director of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, establish the Chief Dental Officer for all
oral health programs within such Centers; and
(4) carry out this section in collaboration with the
Administrators and Chief Dental Officers described in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3).
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, $25,000,000 for
fiscal year 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for each
subsequent fiscal year.

SEC. 402. CDC REPORTS.

(a) Collection of Data.--The Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, in collaboration with other
organizations and agencies, shall collect data through State-
based oral health surveillance systems describing the dental,
craniofacial, and oral health of residents of all 50 States
and certain Indian tribes.
(b) Reports.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall compile and analyze data
collection under subsection (a) and annually prepare and
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
concerning the oral health of States and Indian tribes.

SEC. 403. EARLY CHILDHOOD CARIES.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, shall--
(1) expand existing surveillance activities to include the
identification of children at high risk of early childhood
caries, including sub-populations such as children with
developmental disabilities;
(2) assist State, local, and tribal health agencies and
departments in collecting, analyzing and disseminating data
on early childhood caries; and
(3) provide for the development of public health nursing
programs and public health education programs on early
childhood caries prevention.
(b) Appropriateness of Activities.--The Secretary of Health
and Human Services shall carry out programs and activities
under subsection (a) in a culturally appropriate manner with
respect to populations at risk of early childhood caries.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for each fiscal year.

SEC. 404. SCHOOL-BASED DENTAL SEALANT PROGRAM.

Section 317M(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
247b-14(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and school-linked''
after ``school-based'';
(2) in the first sentence of paragraph (2)--
(A) by inserting ``and school-linked'' after ``school-
based''; and
(B) by inserting ``or Indian tribe'' after ``State''; and
(3) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
``(3) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive funds under
paragraph (1), an entity shall--
``(A) prepare and submit to the State or Indian tribe an
application at such time, in such manner and containing such
information as the State or Indian tribe may require; and
``(B) be a--
``(i) public elementary or secondary school--

``(I) that is located in an urban area in which more than
50 percent of the student population is participating in
Federal or State free or reduced meal programs; or
``(II) that is located in a rural area and, with respect to
the school district in which the school is located, the
district involved has a median income that is at or below 235
percent of the poverty line, as defined in section 673(2) of
the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2));
or

``(ii) public or non-profit organization, including a
grantee under section 330 and urban Indian clinics under
title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, that is
under contract with an elementary or secondary school
described in subparagraph (B) to provide dental services to
school-age children.''.

SEC. 405. BASIC ORAL HEALTH PROMOTION.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services, acting through the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention and in consultation with
dental organizations (including organizations having
expertise in the prevention and treatment of oral disease in
underserved pediatric populations), shall award grants to
States and Indian tribes to improve the basic capacity of
such States and tribes to improve the oral health of children
and their families.
(b) Requirements.--A State or Indian tribes shall use
amounts received under a grant under this section to conduct
one or more of the following activities:
(1) Establish an oral health plan, policies, effective
prevention programs, and accountability measures and systems.
(2) Establish and guide coalitions, partnerships, and
alliances to accomplish the establishment of the plan,
policies, programs and systems under paragraph (1).

[[Page S2510]]

(3) Monitor changes in oral disease burden, disparities,
and the utilization of preventive services by high-risk
populations.
(4) Identify, test, establish, support, and evaluate
prevention interventions to reduce oral health disparities.
(5) Promote public awareness and education in support of
improvements of oral health.
(6) Support training programs for dental and other health
professions needed to strengthen oral health prevention
programs.
(7) Establish, enhance, or expand oral disease prevention
and disparity reduction programs.
(8) Evaluate the progress and effectiveness of the State's
oral disease prevention and disparity reduction program.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section, such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal year 2008 and each subsequent
fiscal year.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 740. A bill to establish in the Department of Commerce an Under
Secretary for United States Direct Investment, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Invest USA
Act of 2007 with my colleague from Indiana, Senator Lugar.
Our legislation creates a United States Direct Investment
Administration, USDIA, within the Department of Commerce, to be led by
an Under Secretary of Commerce for United States Direct Investment.
This new agency will coordinate efforts to attract more foreign direct
investment in the United States, thereby making our economy more
competitive by encouraging multinational businesses to open new
facilities or expand existing operations here, rather than elsewhere.
Specifically, our legislation tasks the new agency with five
principal duties. First, USDIA will collect and analyze data concerning
direct investment flows into both the United States and other
countries.
Second, USDIA will publish an annual direct investment report for
Congress. This report sets forth the data that USDIA collects and
analyzes in the course of its work, identifying best practices in
attracting direct investment at the Federal, State, and regional
levels, as well as those used by other advanced industrialized
countries.
Third, USDIA will publish an annual direct investment agenda to make
strategic policy recommendations based on the direct investment report.
It will also act as the lead agency within a broader interagency Direct
Investment Promotion Committee, which will advocate and implement
USDIA's strategic policy recommendations. For example, as part of this
work, it will create and maintain an internet-accessible database of
direct investment opportunities in the United States.
Fourth, the legislation requires USDIA to focus on direct investment
in critical high-technology industries throughout the course of its
work.
The United States continues to be the premier place in the world to
locate a business. However, in an increasingly globalized world, where
the factors of production can easily migrate from country to country,
we can no longer passively rely on our inherent competitive advantages
alone. We must actively publicize them.
Many countries, particularly those in Europe, have committed
significant resources to recruiting foreign direct investment. For
example, in many cases, our competitors maintain offices in the United
States, where they regularly meet with American business leaders,
encouraging them to consider locating facilities in their country.
Currently, the United States lacks any comparable program to entice
multinational businesses to invest and create jobs here. Instead, we
relegate direct investment promotion to economic development agencies
at the State, regional, and local level. Although these local economic
development agencies make valiant efforts to attract direct investment,
our lack of a national strategy creates two problems.
First, too often, these local economic development agencies suffer
from limited resources, which dwindle even further if the locality is
suffering from an economic downturn due to a plant closing or for other
reasons. Second, the dominance of State and local agencies creates the
impression of an uncoordinated patchwork in the minds of foreign
business executives. Consequently, State and local economic development
agencies are too often unable to perform their recruitment missions
effectively. The Invest USA Act addresses these flaws by creating and
funding USDIA, which can act as a one-stop shop for multinational
businesses seeking to establish new operations or expand existing ones.
Of course, we need to continue to focus on persuading U.S. businesses
to stay in this country. But we also need to launch a concurrent,
robust effort to encourage multinational businesses to establish or
move facilities to our country. The end result is the same: more jobs
for U.S. workers.
According to the Organization for International Investment, direct
investment in the U.S. totaled $128.6 billion in 2005, an increase of
20 percent from the previous year, and according to the latest
available Government data, as of December 31, 2004, U.S. subsidiaries
of foreign multinationals employed approximately 5.1 million American
workers, or 4.7 percent of the workforce. Moreover, according to the
latest available Department of Commerce data, average per-worker
compensation paid by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign multinationals in
2004 was $63,428, over 32 percent higher than compensation at U.S.
companies as a whole.
Senator Lugar and I believe that with a proactive, strategically
focused effort at the Federal level, we can do even better at
attracting the best jobs to our country. The Invest USA Act of 2007
will allow us to do just that.
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. 740

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 ``Invest USA Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the
United States Direct Investment Administration established
under section 4.
(2) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means the Committee
on Finance and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives.
(3) Critical high-technology industries.--The term
``critical high-technology industries'' means industries
involved in technology--
(A) the development of which will--
(i) provide a wide array of economic, environmental,
energy, and defense-related returns for the United States;
and
(ii) ensure United States economic, environmental, energy,
and defense-related welfare; and
(B) in which the United States has an abiding interest in
creating or maintaining secure domestic sources.
(4) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Commerce.
(5) Under secretary.--The term ``Under Secretary'' means
the Under Secretary of Commerce for United States Direct
Investment described in section 4(a).
(6) United states direct investment promotion committee.--
The term ``United States Direct Investment Promotion
Committee'' means the Interagency United States Direct
Investment Promotion Committee established under section 7.
(7) WTO agreement.--The term ``WTO Agreement'' means the
Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization entered
into on April 15, 1994.

SEC. 3. RELATION TO CFIUS.

The provisions of this Act shall not affect the
implementation or application of section 721 of the Defense
Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. App. 2170) and the
activities of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States (or any successor committee).

SEC. 4. ESTABLISHMENT OF UNITED STATES DIRECT INVESTMENT
ADMINISTRATION.

(a) In General.--There is established in the Department of
Commerce a United States Direct Investment Administration,
which shall be headed by an Under Secretary of Commerce for
United States Direct Investment. The Under Secretary shall be
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, and shall be compensated at the rate
of pay provided for a position at level III of the Executive
Schedule under section 5314 of title 5, United States Code.
(b) Deputy Under Secretary.--There shall be in the
Administration a Deputy Under Secretary for United States
Direct Investment, who shall be appointed by the

[[Page S2511]]

President, by and with the advice of the Senate, and shall be
compensated at the rate of pay provided for a position at
level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of
title 5, United States Code.
(c) Staff.--The Under Secretary may appoint such additional
personnel to serve in the Administration as the Under
Secretary determines necessary.
(d) Duties.--The Under Secretary, in cooperation with the
Economics and Statistics Administration and other offices at
the Department, shall--
(1) collect and analyze data related to the flow of direct
investment in the United States and throughout the world, as
described in section 5;
(2) submit to the appropriate congressional committees an
annual United States Direct Investment Report, as described
in section 6;
(3) develop and publish an annual United States Direct
Investment Agenda;
(4) assume responsibility as the lead agency for advocating
and implementing strategic policies that will increase direct
investment in the United States; and
(5) coordinate with the President regarding implementation
of section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 (50
U.S.C. App. 2170) and the activities of the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States (or any successor
committee).
(e) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 5314 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``Under Secretary of
Commerce for United States Direct Investment.''.
(2) Section 5315 of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following: ``Deputy Under Secretary
of Commerce for United States Direct Investment.''.

SEC. 5. ANNUAL DIRECT INVESTMENT REPORT.

(a) Annual Direct Investment Report.--Not later than
October 1, 2008, and annually thereafter, the Under Secretary
shall submit a report on the data identified and the analysis
described in subsection (b) for the preceding calendar year
(which shall be known as the ``Annual Direct Investment
Report''). The Report shall be submitted to the President and
the appropriate congressional committees.
(b) Data Identification.--
(1) In general.--The data identified and analysis for the
Report described in subsection (a) means the data identified
and analyzed by the Under Secretary of Commerce, in
cooperation with the Economic and Statistics Administration
and other offices at the Department and with the assistance
of other departments and agencies, including the Office of
the United States Trade Representative, for the preceding
calendar year regarding the following:
(A) Policies, programs, and practices at the State and
regional level designed to attract direct investment.
(B) The amount of direct investment attracted in each such
State and region.
(C) Policies, programs, and practices in foreign countries
designed to attract direct investment, and the amount of
direct investment attracted in each such foreign country.
(D) A comparison of the levels of direct investment
attracted in the United States and in foreign countries,
including a matrix of inputs affecting the level of direct
investment.
(E) Specific sectors in the United States and in foreign
countries in which direct investments are being made,
including the specific amounts invested in each sector, with
particular emphasis on critical high-technology industries.
(F) Trends in direct investment, with particular emphasis
on critical high-technology industries.
(G) The best policy and practices at the Federal, State,
and regional levels regarding direct investment policy, with
specific reference to programs and policies that have the
greatest potential to increase direct investment in the
United States and enhance United States competitive advantage
relative to foreign countries. Particular emphasis should be
given to attracting direct investment in critical high-
technology industries.
(H) Policies, programs, and practices in foreign countries
designed to attract direct investment that are not in
compliance with the WTO Agreement and the agreements annexed
to that Agreement.
(2) Certain factors taken into account in making
analysis.--In making any analysis under paragraph (1), the
Under Secretary shall take into account--
(A) the relative impact of policies, programs, and
practices of foreign governments on United States commerce;
(B) the availability of information to document the effect
of policies, programs, and practices;
(C) the extent to which such act, policy, or practice is
subject to international agreements to which the United
States is a party; and
(D) the impact trends in direct investment have had on--
(i) the competitiveness of United States industries in the
international economy, with particular emphasis on critical
high-technology industries;
(ii) the value of goods and services exported from and
imported to the United States;
(iii) employment in the United States, in particular high-
wage employment; and
(iv) the provision of health care, pensions, and other
benefits provided by companies based in the United States.
(c) Assistance of Other Agencies.--
(1) Furnishing of information.--The head of each department
or agency of the executive branch of the Government,
including any independent agency, is authorized and directed
to furnish to the Under Secretary, upon request, such data,
reports, and other information as is necessary for the Under
Secretary to carry out the functions under this Act.
(2) Restrictions on release or use of information.--Nothing
in this subsection shall authorize the release of information
to, or the use of information by, the Under Secretary in a
manner inconsistent with law or any procedure established
pursuant thereto.
(3) Personnel and services.--The head of any department,
agency, or instrumentality of the United States may detail
such personnel and may furnish such services, with or without
reimbursement, as the Under Secretary may request to assist
in carrying out the functions of the Under Secretary.
(d) Annual Revisions and Updates.--The Under Secretary
shall annually revise and update the Report described in
subsection (a).

SEC. 6. ANNUAL DIRECT INVESTMENT AGENDA.

(a) In General.--Not later than October 1, 2008, and
annually thereafter, the Under Secretary shall submit an
agenda based on the data and analysis described in section 5
for the preceding calendar year, to the President and the
appropriate congressional committees. The agenda shall be
known as the ``Annual Direct Investment Agenda'' and shall
include--
(1) an evaluation of the research and development program
expenditures being made in the United States with particular
emphasis to critical high-technology industries considered
essential to United States economic security and necessary
for long-term United States economic competitiveness in world
markets; and
(2) proposals that identify the policies, programs, and
practices in foreign countries and that the United States
should pursue that--
(A) encourage direct investment in the United States that
will enhance the country's competitive advantage relative to
foreign countries, with particular emphasis on critical high-
technology industries;
(B) enhance the viability of the manufacturing sector in
the United States;
(C) increase opportunities for high-wage jobs and promote
high levels of employment;
(D) encourage economic growth; and
(E) increase opportunities for the provision of health
care, pensions, and other benefits provided by companies
based in the United States.
(b) Submission.--To the extent practical, the Under
Secretary shall submit the Annual Direct Investment Agenda
concurrently with the Annual Direct Investment Report.
(c) Consultation With Congress on Annual Direct Investment
Agenda.--The Under Secretary shall keep the appropriate
congressional committees currently informed with respect to
the Annual Direct Investment Agenda and implementation of the
Agenda. After the submission of the Agenda, the Under
Secretary shall also consult periodically with, and take into
account the views of, the appropriate congressional
committees regarding implementation of the Agenda.

SEC. 7. UNITED STATES DIRECT INVESTMENT PROMOTION COMMITTEE.

(a) Establishment.--The President shall establish and the
Under Secretary shall assume lead responsibility for an
Interagency United States Direct Investment Promotion
Committee. The functions of the Committee shall be to--
(1) coordinate all United States Government activities
related to the promotion of direct investment in the United
States;
(2) advocate and implement strategic policies, programs,
and practices that will increase direct investment in the
United States;
(3) train United States Government officials to pursue
strategic policies, programs, and practices that will
increase direct investment in the United States;
(4) consult with business, labor, State, regional, and
local government officials on strategic policies, programs,
and practices that will increase direct investment in the
United States;
(5) develop and publish materials that can be used by
Federal, State, regional, and local government officials to
increase direct investment in the United States;
(6) create and maintain a database of direct investment
opportunities in the United States;
(7) create and maintain an interactive website that can be
used to access direct investment opportunities in different
sectors and geographical areas of the United States, with
particular emphasis on critical high-technology industries;
(8) coordinate direct investment marketing activities with
State Economic Development Agencies; and
(9) host regular meetings and discussions with State,
regional, and local economic development officials to
consider best policy practices to increase direct investment
in the United States.
(b) Members.--The Committee shall be composed of the
following:
(1) The Secretary of Commerce.
(2) The United States Trade Representative.
(3) Members of the United States International Trade
Commission.
(4) The Secretary of the Treasury.

[[Page S2512]]

(5) Members of the National Economic Council.
(6) The Secretary of Agriculture.
(7) Such other officials as the President determines to be
necessary.

SEC. 8. DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL RENEWAL COMMUNITIES.

Section 1400E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
(relating to designation of renewal communities) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(h) Additional Designations Permitted.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the areas designated
under subsection (a), the Under Secretary of Commerce for
United States Direct Investment, after consultation with the
Secretary of the Treasury, may designate in the aggregate an
additional 10 nominated areas as renewal communities under
this section, subject to the availability of eligible
nominated areas.
``(2) Period designations may be made and take effect.--A
designation may be made under this subsection after the date
of the enactment of this subsection and before the date which
is 5 years after such date of enactment. Subject to
subparagraphs (B) and (C) of subsection (b)(1), a designation
made under this subsection shall remain in effect during the
period beginning with such designation and ending on the date
which is 8 years after such designation.
``(3) Application of rules.--Except as otherwise provided
in paragraph (1), the rules of this section shall apply to
designations under this subsection.''.
______

By Ms. COLLINS:
S. 741. A bill to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act to establish a grant program to ensure waterfront access
for commercial fishermen, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, all along our Nation's coasts there are
harbors that were once full of the hustle and bustle associated with
the fishing industry. Unfortunately, there has been an erosion of the
vital infrastructure, known as our working waterfronts, that is so
critical to our commercial fishing industries. To better preserve these
waterfront areas, I have drafted legislation that will help to protect
commercial access to our waterfronts and to support the fishing
industry's role in our maritime heritage.
When constituents have called asking me to help them in their efforts
to stop the loss of their fishing businesses and the communities built
around this industry, I realized more needed to be done to preserve and
increase waterfront access for the commercial fishing industry.
Currently, there is no Federal program to promote and protect the
working waterfronts other than identifying some grant programs that
might apply. There is an immediate need to protect our working
waterfronts since we are losing more of them every week, and quite
simply, once lost, these vital economic and community hubs of
commercial fishing activity cannot be replaced.
I rise today to re-introduce a bill I originally proposed in the
109th Congress--the Working Waterfront Preservation Act. This
legislation would create a program to support our Nation's commercial
fishing families and the coastal communities that are at risk of losing
their fishing businesses.
I can illustrate the need for such a program by describing the loss
of commercial waterfront access occurring in Maine. Only 25 of Maine's
3,500 miles of coastline are devoted to commercial access. We are
continually seeing portions of Maine's working waterfront being sold
off to the highest bidder--with large vacation homes and condominiums
rising in places that our fishing industry used to call home.

The reasons for the loss of Maine's working waterfront are complex.
In some cases, burdensome fishing regulations have led to a decrease in
landings, hindering the profitability of shore-side infrastructure,
like the Portland Fish Exchange. In other cases, soaring land values
and rising taxes have made the current use of commercial land
unprofitable. Property is being sold and quickly converted into private
spaces and second homes that are no longer the center of economic
activity.
Maine's lack of commercial waterfront prompted the formation of a
``Working Waterfront Coalition.'' This coalition is comprised of an
impressive number of industry associations, non- profit groups, and
state agencies, who came together to preserve Maine's working
waterfront. The coalition identified eighteen projects that would
increase Maine's available working waterfront. These eighteen sites
would create or preserve more than 875 jobs.
I'm pleased to note that the Working Waterfront Coalition has been
successful in contributing to the creation of two programs in Maine.
The first is a State tax incentive for property owners to keep their
land in its current working waterfront condition. The second is a pilot
program for grant funding to secure and preserve working waterfront
areas. I am proud that the State of Maine has taken positive action to
save its waterfront infrastructure and is a model for other States in
the country facing this problem.
However, we must press on with this priority. The loss of commercial
waterfront access affects the fishing industry throughout all coastal
States. Pick up a newspaper in one of our coastal States, and you will
read about this struggle. Fishermen in Galilee, RI are being pushed
away from the waterfronts as their profitability shrinks and land
values soar. The Los Angeles Times ran a story on the disappearance of
working waterfronts in Florida. That State has also since enacted a law
to protect their working waterfronts. Washington State struggles to
balance working waterfronts with increased development pressure.
Another region of the country that this bill would benefit is the Gulf
Coast. This legislation would assist the victims of Hurricane Katrina
in rebuilding their shore-side infrastructure destroyed in the storm.

And modest federal investment could do so much to save these areas.
Preservation of the working waterfront is essential to protect a way of
life that is unique to our coastal States and is vital to economic
development along the coast. This bill targets this problem, as no
Federal program exists to assist States like Maine, Florida,
Washington, and Louisiana.
The Working Waterfront Preservation Act would assist by providing
Federal grant funding to municipal and State governments, non-profit
organizations, and fishermen's cooperatives for the purchase of
property or easements or for the maintenance of working waterfront
facilities. The bill contains a $50 million authorization for grants
that would require a 25 percent local match. Applications for grants
would be considered by both the Department of Commerce and state
fisheries agencies, which have the local expertise to understand the
needs of each coastal State. Grant recipients would agree not to
convert coastal properties to noncommercial uses, as a condition of
receiving federal assistance.
This legislation also has a tax component included. When properties
or easements are purchased, sellers would only be taxed on half of the
gain they receive from this sale. Taxing only half of the gain on
conservation sales is a proposal that has been advanced by the
President in all of his budget proposals. This is a vital aspect of my
bill because it would diminish the pressure to quickly sell waterfront
property that would then, most likely, be converted to noncommercial
uses, and would increase the incentives for sellers to take part in
this grant program. This is especially important given that the
application process for federal grants does not keep pace with the
coastal real estate market.
This legislation is crucial for our Nation's commercial fisheries,
which are coming under increasing pressures from many fronts. This new
grant program would preserve important commercial infrastructure and
promote economic development along our coast. I am committed to
creating a Federal mechanism to preserve working waterfronts and will
pursue this legislation during the 110th Congress.
______

By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 744. A bill to provide greater public safety by making more
spectrum available to public safety, to establish the Public Safety
Interoperable Communications Working Group to provide standards for
public safety spectrum needs, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. McCain. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today the
Spectrum Availability for Emergency-Response and Law-Enforcement to
Improve Vital Emergency Services Act, otherwise known as the SAVE LIVES
Act. The bill would provide public safety with the ability to use an
additional

[[Page S2513]]

30 MHz of radio spectrum for a new nationwide public safety state-of-
the-art broadband network. This would allow police, fire, sheriffs, and
other medical and emergency professionals the ability to communicate
using a modern and reliable broadband network, thereby allowing for
interoperable communications between local, State and Federal first
responders during emergencies.
The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that: ``Command and control
decisions were affected by the lack of knowledge of what was happening
30, 60, 90, and 100 floors above'' due to the inability of police and
firefighters to communicate using their hand held radios. The Final
Report recommended the ``expedited and increased assignment of radio
spectrum to public safety entities'' to resolve the problem. This bill
would finally implement fully the recommendation.
Let me be clear: the Federal Government has made many strides in
developing a comprehensive, interoperable emergency communications
plan, setting equipment standards, funding the purchase of
interoperable communications equipment, and belatedly making additional
radio spectrum available. But none of this is enough. We will not solve
our Nation's interoperability crisis until all emergency personnel
involved in responding to an incident are able to communicate
seamlessly, and that is what this legislation is intended to
accomplish.
I have been working on this issue for many years. Ten years ago,
while serving as Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, I
introduced the Law Enforcement and Public Safety Telecommunications
Empowerment Act, which would have provided public safety with 24 MHz in
the 700 MHz band and authorized 10 percent of proceeds from an auction
of spectrum to commercial companies to be used to fund State and local
law enforcement communications. Although my bill did not pass, Congress
did require this spectrum to be allocated to public safety in the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Unfortunately, this spectrum was encumbered by television
broadcasters who refused to move despite broadcasters being given other
spectrum in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The television
broadcasters persuaded some members of Congress to slip into the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997 a provision that allowed for broadcasters
to retain their new spectrum and use the spectrum dedicated to public
safety for an indefinite time.
Rightly, public safety fought the broadcasters' ``spectrum
squatting'' and asked Congress to set a firm date for broadcasters to
provide public safety spectrum. I was happy to support them in the
fight.
During the 108th Congress, I introduced a bill that would have
provided public safety with this spectrum by January 1, 2008. The bill
was not considered by the Senate. I also introduced an amendment to the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to set a firm
date for the delivery of this spectrum, but it was strongly opposed
thanks to the broadcasters.
In October 2005, the Commerce Committee debated a firm date as part
of the Budget Reconciliation Act of 2006. I offered an amendment to
make the spectrum available by January 2007, but it was shot down by a
vote of 17-5. I then took an amendment to the floor which was defeated
by a vote of 30-69. Congress did finally set the date of February 17,
2009--date that is too late in my opinion.
I have not only been concerned about public safety not receiving
spectrum in a timely manner, but also not receiving enough spectrum. In
2004, I offered an amendment that was included in the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which required the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) to study the short-term and long-term spectrum needs of public
safety. In December 2005, the FCC delivered their report. While the
report did not contain a specific amount of spectrum necessary to aid
public safety interoperability, it did state, `` . . . . emergency
response providers would benefit from the development of an integrated,
interoperable nationwide network capable of delivering broadband
services throughout the country.'' DHS has never provided its report to
Congress.
The FCC's recommendation became all too apparent during the horrors
of Hurricane Katrina. First responders in Louisiana were unable to
communicate with each other during their response and recovery efforts
because New Orleans and the three nearby parishes all used different
radio equipment and frequencies. To make matters worse, Federal
officials responding to the area used an entirely different
communications system than the local first responders, which hindered
relief efforts. New Orleans officials had purchased equipment that
would allow some patching between local and Federal radio systems, but
that equipment was rendered useless by flooding. Nonetheless, short
term solutions to link incompatible systems are not the right approach
to this critical problem. A better approach is for this Nation and its
representatives to get serious about public safety communications by
developing an interoperable communications network for all local,
state, regional and Federal first responders that can carry voice and
data communications.
I believe the SAVE LIVES bill provides that comprehensive and serious
approach. The bill would establish a national policy for public safety
spectrum, directing that the 24 MHz allocated by Congress to public
safety in 1997 be used for state, local and regional interoperability
and that the 30 MHz in the 700 MHz band be available as needed for a
national, interoperable public safety broadband network by local,
State, regional and Federal first responders. These two networks would
be interoperable, thereby allowing local, State, regional and Federal
first responders to communicate. Congress has deemed spectrum in the
700 MHz band ``ideal'' for public safety communications because it can
travel great distances and penetrate thick walls.

The day before our Nation experienced the worst act of terrorism on
our soil, the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee completed an
850-page study of public safety spectrum requirements and recommended
that 97.5 MHz of additional spectrum be made available for public
safety. In 1997, Congress set aside 24 MHz of spectrum in the 700 MHz
band for public safety use, but due to television broadcasters refusal
to relocate from that spectrum, public safety will not have full use of
the spectrum until February 2009. However, public safety states that
the 24 MHz is not enough. Just last month, Fire Chief Charles Werner of
Virginia testified before the Senate Commerce Committee that an
additional 70 MHz may be needed by 2011.
The bill also would establish a ``Public Safety Interoperable Working
Group'' (the Working Group) to establish user driven specifications for
public safety's use of the 30 MHz and then require the FCC to auction
the 30 MHz under a ``conditional license'' that requires any winning
bidder to meet public safety's specifications to operate a national,
interoperable public safety broadband network. If there is no winning
bidder, then the license to the 30 MHz will revert to public safety,
which could then use the spectrum for a national, interoperable public
safety broadband network and work with the FCC to auction excess non-
emergency capacity.
To ensure public safety is using the spectrum effectively and
efficiently, the bill would require the FCC to review public safety's
use of the 24 MHz to determine whether it could handle a national
interoperable broadband network in addition to local, state and
regional networks as technology improves. The bill would also require
the FCC, DHS and public safety to review the possibility of moving most
public safety communications to the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands thereby
enhancing interoperability.
As required by Congress, the FCC is slated to auction spectrum in the
700 MHz band by January 28, 2008. Except for the 24 MHz allocated to
public safety, the remaining spectrum will be auctioned to commercial
providers unless Congress dictates otherwise. Therefore any use of the
30 MHz by public safety must be considered quickly by Congress as the
FCC would need to begin developing the rules for a conditional license
by early fall to ensure that the auction date is not delayed.
Late last year, the FCC stated, ``The availability of a nationwide,
interoperable, broadband communication network for public safety
substantially

[[Page S2514]]

could enhance the ability of public safety entities to respond to
emergency situations . . . yet only 2.6 MHz is designated for
nationwide interoperable communications in the 700 MHz public safety
band.'' This is unacceptable and that is why I believe the SAVE LIVES
Act would solve the interoperability crisis that faces our country.
We cannot survive another disaster such as 9/11 or Katrina without
reforming our Nation's interoperable communications. I fought for many
years to clear the 700 MHz spectrum for first responders and now that
there is a firm date for the availability of this spectrum, we should
ensure that a sufficient amount of spectrum is being provided to first
responders. Again, this spectrum is slated to be auctioned in January
2008 to commercial entities, so if Congress does not act now to ensure
that public safety can have some reasonable access to this valuable
spectrum, it will be auctioned off without any consideration to our
Nation's interoperability crisis and this opportunity will be lost
forever.
I know some critics would rather all of this spectrum be auctioned
solely for commercial applications, such as wireless Internet surfing,
instant messaging and phone services. I can assure you, I do not lay
awake at night wondering why my children can't surf the Internet on
their cell phone from any location at any time, but I do worry about
whether we will be adequately prepared to respond to the next disaster.
I can only imagine how many lives could have been saved during 9/11
had this spectrum been available and I can only imagine how many
victims of Hurricane Katrina could have been rescued sooner if only
police, fire fighters and other emergency personnel had been able to
communicate with each other. But instead of imagining, we have an
obligation to act. We can have a national, interoperable communications
system available to first responders by 2009 if we act now to make this
spectrum available to public safety.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the SAVE LIVES Act.
______

By Ms. LANDRIEU:
S. 745. A bill to provide for increased export assistance staff in
areas in which the President declared a major disaster as a result of
Hurricane Katrina of 2005 and Hurricane Rita of 2005; to the Committee
on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, as I come to the floor today to speak,
there are countless small businesses in the Gulf Coast, right this
moment, that are open for business. The fact that they are open at all
is a testament to the hard work and resolve of their owners, along with
the focus and commitment of community leaders, state and local
officials, as well as Congress and the White House. This is because, as
you know, the Gulf Coast was devastated in 2005 by two of the most
powerful storms to ever hit the United States in recorded history--
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
I strongly believe that we cannot rebuild the Gulf Coast without our
small businesses. Small businesses not only create jobs and pay taxes--
they provide the innovation and energy that drives our economy. In
fact, before Katrina and Rita hit, there were more than 95,000 small
businesses in Louisiana, employing about 850,000 people--more than half
of my State's workforce. About 39,000 of these businesses have yet to
resume normal operations so I intend to do everything I can in the
coming months to get them back up and running.
That is why today I am introducing legislation to help provide the
necessary staff to help our small businesses in the Gulf recover from
the devastating storms of 2005. In particular, this legislation is
focused on promoting exports by small businesses Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama. Small businesses are important players in
international trade, which is reflected in the fact that small
businesses represent that 96 percent of all exporters of goods and
services In Louisiana, we have about 2,000 declared exporters. However,
there are many more businesses in my state who conduct Internet sales
overseas, as well as those who focus operations on domestic sales but
have some international buyers as well. These businesses are exporters
but in many cases they do not even realize it!
Given the importance of these exporters to my State and to the rest
of the country, I would like to improve their competitive edge in the
international market and give them every resource they need to succeed.
As our businesses continue to recover, one of the main issues being
faced by our small businesses is accessing capital. They need help
accessing export financing to cover export-related costs such as
purchasing equipment, purchasing inventory, or financing production
costs.
To assist businesses with obtaining export financing, fifteen SBA
Finance Specialists operate out of 100 U.S. Export Assistance Centers
administered by the Department of Commerce around the country. However,
despite the increased need for export financing in the Gulf Coast,
there is currently no International Finance Specialist located in any
of the hardest hit States of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana.
Instead there is one specialist in Texas with responsibility for Texas,
Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana and one specialist in Georgia
responsible for Georgia, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi.
Due to the extensive territories they cover and limited travel budgets
of the staff, these specialists must divide their time and cannot focus
on the needs of Gulf Coast small businesses.
With this in mind, this legislation would provide an SBA
International Finance Specialist to the New Orleans U.S. Export
Assistance Center with responsibility for Louisiana, Alabama, and
Mississippi. I believe this is a commonsense approach, since this
position in New Orleans has remained vacant since 2003 due to
retirement and budget issues. So this is not a new position or a new
hire, it is simply filling a position that has sat open for far too
long.

The Gulf Coast Export Recovery Act of 2007 would also address
Commerce staffing issues for our New Orleans U.S. Export Assistance
Center. In this office, there is currently four full-time export
assistance staff, along with one Foreign Service Officer. This office
has had two staffers leave the office since Katrina and I am concerned
that when this Foreign Service Officer leaves this fall, that there
will be no replacement. This understaffed office is struggling to keep
up with the increasing demands from businesses for technical assistance
on finding overseas markets for local products, particularly businesses
near Baton Rouge and the River parishes. Staff in New Orleans cover
south Louisiana as well as the coastal counties in Mississippi. With
such a wide area to cover, and so few staff, they are doing a great job
in providing services but obviously need additional help to fully
service our local businesses. The Small Business International Trade
Enhancements Act of 2007 would provide one additional full-time staffer
to this office to assist our businesses in the parishes of East Baton
Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Iberville, Pointe Coupee, St. Martin, St.
Landry and Iberia. Many of our businesses from the New Orleans area are
relocating to these parishes so we need adequate staff to keep up with
increasing export needs in the area.
In closing, I should note that both of these provisions were included
in the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that was reported
out of committee last Fall. Unfortunately, since that bill was not
enacted, these provisions did not become law and our small business
exporters have waited an additional 7 months for increased export
assistance resources. I do not want them to have to wait another 7
months for this vital assistance. We are only asking for two full-time
staffers for an office, but these two staffers would make a world of
difference for the businesses, as well as for the understaffed office
down there. I believe both the Department of Commerce and the Small
Business Administration are supportive of these staffing increases so I
look forward to working with them in the coming months to address these
staffing needs in New Orleans. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation since it will help our exporters in the Gulf Coast fully
recover and will help the country as a whole by increasing exports from
the Gulf Coast states.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.

[[Page S2515]]

There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 745

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 ``Gulf Coast Export Recovery
Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL STAFF FOR NEW ORLEANS UNITED STATES EXPORT
ASSISTANCE CENTER.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Commerce shall hire 1
additional full-time international trade specialist, to be
located in the New Orleans, Louisiana, United States Export
Assistance Center.
(b) Responsibilities.--The international trade specialist
hired under subsection (a) shall provide service to the
parishes of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Pointe
Coupee, Iberville, St. Martin, St. Landry, and Iberia,
Louisiana, and any other parish selected by the Secretary of
Commerce.

SEC. 3. GULF COAST EXPORT ASSISTANCE.

(a) Increase in Small Business International Trade Staff.--
The Administrator shall hire an additional full-time
international finance specialist to the Office of
International Trade of the Administration.
(b) Location and Service Area.--The international finance
specialist hired under subsection (a) shall--
(1) be located in the New Orleans, Louisiana United States
Export Assistance Center;
(2) help to carry out the export promotion efforts
described in section 22 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
649); and
(3) provide such services in the States of Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
(1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Administration such sums as are necessary to carry out
this section.
(2) Availability of funds.--Amounts made available under
this subsection shall remain available until expended.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act, the terms ``Administration'' and
``Administrator'' mean the Small Business Administration and
the Administrator thereof, respectively.
______

By Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Ms. Cantwell, Mr.
Dodd, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Crapo):
S.J. Res. 4. A joint resolution to acknowledge a long history of
official depredations and ill-conceived policies by the United States
Government regarding Indian tribes and offer an apology to all Native
Peoples on behalf of the United States; to the Committee on Indian
Affairs.

S.J. Res. 4

Whereas the ancestors of today's Native Peoples inhabited
the land of the present-day United States since time
immemorial and for thousands of years before the arrival of
peoples of European descent;
Whereas the Native Peoples have for millennia honored,
protected, and stewarded this land we cherish;
Whereas the Native Peoples are spiritual peoples with a
deep and abiding belief in the Creator, and for millennia
their peoples have maintained a powerful spiritual connection
to this land, as is evidenced by their customs and legends;
Whereas the arrival of Europeans in North America opened a
new chapter in the histories of the Native Peoples;
Whereas, while establishment of permanent European
settlements in North America did stir conflict with nearby
Indian tribes, peaceful and mutually beneficial interactions
also took place;
Whereas the foundational English settlements in Jamestown,
Virginia, and Plymouth, Massachusetts, owed their survival in
large measure to the compassion and aid of the Native Peoples
in their vicinities;
Whereas in the infancy of the United States, the founders
of the Republic expressed their desire for a just
relationship with the Indian tribes, as evidenced by the
Northwest Ordinance enacted by Congress in 1787, which begins
with the phrase, ``The utmost good faith shall always be
observed toward the Indians'';
Whereas Indian tribes provided great assistance to the
fledgling Republic as it strengthened and grew, including
invaluable help to Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on
their epic journey from St. Louis, Missouri, to the Pacific
Coast;
Whereas Native Peoples and non-Native settlers engaged in
numerous armed conflicts;
Whereas the United States Government violated many of the
treaties ratified by Congress and other diplomatic agreements
with Indian tribes;
Whereas this Nation should address the broken treaties and
many of the more ill-conceived Federal policies that
followed, such as extermination, termination, forced removal
and relocation, the outlawing of traditional religions, and
the destruction of sacred places;
Whereas the United States forced Indian tribes and their
citizens to move away from their traditional homelands and
onto federally established and controlled reservations, in
accordance with such Acts as the Indian Removal Act of 1830;
Whereas many Native Peoples suffered and perished--
(1) during the execution of the official United States
Government policy of forced removal, including the infamous
Trail of Tears and Long Walk;
(2) during bloody armed confrontations and massacres, such
as the Sand Creek Massacre in 1864 and the Wounded Knee
Massacre in 1890; and
(3) on numerous Indian reservations;
Whereas the United States Government condemned the
traditions, beliefs, and customs of the Native Peoples and
endeavored to assimilate them by such policies as the
redistribution of land under the General Allotment Act of
1887 and the forcible removal of Native children from their
families to faraway boarding schools where their Native
practices and languages were degraded and forbidden;
Whereas officials of the United States Government and
private United States citizens harmed Native Peoples by the
unlawful acquisition of recognized tribal land and the theft
of tribal resources and assets from recognized tribal land;
Whereas the policies of the United States Government toward
Indian tribes and the breaking of covenants with Indian
tribes have contributed to the severe social ills and
economic troubles in many Native communities today;
Whereas, despite the wrongs committed against Native
Peoples by the United States, the Native Peoples have
remained committed to the protection of this great land, as
evidenced by the fact that, on a per capita basis, more
Native people have served in the United States Armed Forces
and placed themselves in harm's way in defense of the United
States in every major military conflict than any other ethnic
group;
Whereas Indian tribes have actively influenced the public
life of the United States by continued cooperation with
Congress and the Department of the Interior, through the
involvement of Native individuals in official United States
Government positions, and by leadership of their own
sovereign Indian tribes;
Whereas Indian tribes are resilient and determined to
preserve, develop, and transmit to future generations their
unique cultural identities;
Whereas the National Museum of the American Indian was
established within the Smithsonian Institution as a living
memorial to the Native Peoples and their traditions; and
Whereas Native Peoples are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights, and that among those are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND APOLOGY.

The United States, acting through Congress--
(1) recognizes the special legal and political relationship
the Indian tribes have with the United States and the solemn
covenant with the land we share;
(2) commends and honors the Native Peoples for the
thousands of years that they have stewarded and protected
this land;
(3) recognizes that there have been years of official
depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of
covenants by the United States Government regarding Indian
tribes;
(4) apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States
to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence,
maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by
citizens of the United States;
(5) expresses its regret for the ramifications of former
wrongs and its commitment to build on the positive
relationships of the past and present to move toward a
brighter future where all the people of this land live
reconciled as brothers and sisters, and harmoniously steward
and protect this land together;
(6) urges the President to acknowledge the wrongs of the
United States against Indian tribes in the history of the
United States in order to bring healing to this land by
providing a proper foundation for reconciliation between the
United States and Indian tribes; and
(7) commends the State governments that have begun
reconciliation efforts with recognized Indian tribes located
in their boundaries and encourages all State governments
similarly to work toward reconciling relationships with
Indian tribes within their boundaries.

SEC. 2. DISCLAIMER.

Nothing in this Joint Resolution--
(1) authorizes or supports any claim against the United
States; or
(2) serves as a settlement of any claim against the United
States.

____________________