[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 63 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4752-S4782]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. HARKIN:
  S. 1157. A bill to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to eliminate the 
consumptive demand exception relating to the importation of goods made 
with forced labor; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today, I rise to introduce legislation 
that will strike the consumptive demand clause from Section 307 of the 
Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1307). Section 307 prohibits the 
importation of any product or good produced with forced or indentured 
labor including forced or indentured child labor.
  The consumptive demand clause creates an exception to this 
prohibition. Under the exception, if a product is not made in the 
United States, and there is a demand for it, then a product made with 
forced or indentured child labor may be imported into this country.
  Let us be clear: forced or indentured labor means work which is 
extracted from any person under the menace of penalty for 
nonperformance and for which the worker does not offer himself 
voluntarily. Let us be really clear: this means slave labor. In the 
case of children, it means child slavery.
  Some examples of goods that are made with child slave labor include 
cocoa beans, hand-knotted carpets, beedis, which are small Indian 
cigarettes, and cotton.
  Throughout my Senate career, I have worked to reduce the use of 
forced child labor worldwide. It was in 1992 that I first introduced a 
bill to ban all products made by abusive and exploitative child labor 
from entering the United States.
  Over the years we have been making some progress. I was heartened 
last year when the International Labor Organization's (ILO) global 
report, The End of Child Labor Within Reach, detailed the progress 
being made on reducing the worst forms of child labor. The ILO projects 
that if the current pace of decline in child labor were to be 
maintained, child labor could be eliminated, in most of its worst 
forms, in 10 years--by 2016. Although there has been a tremendous 
amount of progress in ending child labor, there are still

[[Page S4753]]

some obstacles to ending these abusive practices. One of those 
impediments is the consumptive demand clause.
  Today, hundreds of millions of children are still forced to work 
illegally for little or no pay, making goods that enter our country 
everyday. For this reason, the consumptive demand clause is outdated. 
Since this exception was enacted in the 1930s, the U.S. has taken 
numerous steps to stop the scourge of child slave labor. Most notably, 
the United States has ratified International Labor Organization's 
Convention 182 to Prohibit the Worst Forms of Child Labor. Currently, 
162 other countries have also ratified this ILO Convention.
  Additionally, in 2003, my staff was invited by Customs to meet with 
field agents on Section 307 to discuss what appropriations were needed 
to enforce the statute. At the meeting, the field agents reported that 
the consumptive demand clause was an obstacle to their ability to 
enforce the law that is supposed to prevent goods made with slave labor 
from being imported into the United States. Yet there has been no 
action from the Bush Administration to support efforts to remove the 
clause.
  Retaining the consumptive demand clause contradicts our moral beliefs 
and our international commitments to eliminate abusive child labor. 
Maintaining the consumptive demand clause says to the world that the 
United States justifies the use of slave labor, if U.S. consumers need 
an item not produced in this country. Last year, Harvard University 
conducted a pilot study on the effects on sales of labeling towels, 
candles, and dolls as made under ``fair labor conditions.'' The study 
found that labeling the products and raising their prices slightly to 
cover the costs of ensuring fair labor conditions resulted in an 
increased demand for these products among certain consumers in New York 
City.
  There should be no exception to a fundamental stand against the use 
of slave labor. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INHOFE:
  S. 1158. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to increase the use of 
renewable and alternative fuel, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Alternative 
Fuel Standard Act. The bill that I am introducing today reflects the 
President's draft legislation to which he referred in his State of the 
Union.
  Although I may have some questions with the particulars of the 
President's plan, he and I share the common goal of increasing domestic 
energy security without compromising environmental quality.
  As the committee of principal jurisdiction, the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works has a long history of moving fuels 
legislation. While chairman, I successfully discharged legislation that 
served as the historic fuels title to the comprehensive energy bill. 
That renewable fuels plan was the product of years of hearings, 
negotiation, and debate. The President's initiative deserves the same 
amount of attention.
  According to a Labor Department report this month, most of the 
country's inflation can be directly attributed to higher gas prices. 
The USDA's Economic Research Service concluded that high gas prices 
will increase food costs in 2007; the Service noted that the food 
consumer price index increased at an annual rate of 2.3 percent in 2006 
and will increase 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent.
  The Energy Information Administration's April 2007 Outlook noted that 
the higher prices are due to continued international tensions, the 
conversion to summer blends, and unanticipated refinery problems.
  AAA found that the average national price for gasoline is $2.87 up 
from $2.55 just a month earlier. Yet those national high prices seem 
low compared to California. AAA of Northern California noted that the 
average price for gasoline is $3.41 in Oakland, $3.53 in San Francisco, 
and averages $3.34 statewide.
  The bottom line--supply source instability and inadequate domestic 
infrastructure have and will continue to contribute to high prices and 
inflation unless Congress does something about it. The President's 
ambitious proposal seeks to alleviate those concerns by sourcing new 
supply domestically.
  The proposal that I am introducing would amend the Clean Air Act's 
existing renewable fuels standard by diversifying the types of 
qualifying fuels and increasing the volumes. Qualifying alternative 
fuels will be expanded to include fuels derived from gas and coal, and 
hydrogen, among others.
  Cellulosic biomass ethanol is a promising technology that could 
significantly increase fuel supplies without compromising the food and 
feed prices. I am proud to say that some of the foremost research in 
the field is being done in my own State of Oklahoma, including a team 
at the Noble Foundation. Their work is engineering high energy and 
perennial crops that can be grown across the country.
  Similarly, coal-to-liquids fuels could be the greatest domestic 
energy resource of all time. I have been promoting the technology for 
years, particularly for defense aircraft, but now is the time to expand 
this super clean fuel for use across America.
  The plan would replace the current RFS by requiring 10 billion 
gallons of alternative fuel to be used in 2010 and increasing to 35 
billion gallons by 2018. The bill similarly builds upon the current RFS 
by requiring EPA to incorporate the newer qualifying fuels into the 
credit trading system.
  I have been seeking to increase U.S. energy security for years. I am 
glad that the President has stepped up and taken this issue head-on. 
The proposal deserves careful and proper consideration. The American 
people require as much. I look forward to working with my colleagues to 
improve U.S. domestic energy security while fully considering public 
health and welfare.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. HAGEL (for himself, Mr. Harkin, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Roberts, 
        Mr. Coleman, Mr. Warner, Ms. Collins, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Dodd, 
        Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Lieberman, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 1159. A bill to amend part B of the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act to provide full Federal funding of such part; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Nebraska, Senator Hagel, in introducing the IDEA Full Funding Act. The 
aim of this legislation is to ensure, at long last, that Congress makes 
good on a commitment it made more than three decades ago when we passed 
what is now called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. At 
that time, in 1975, we told children with disabilities, their families, 
schools, and States that the Federal Government would pay 40 percent of 
the extra cost of special education. We have never lived up to that 
commitment. In fact, today, we are not even halfway there.
  As we introduce this bill, we want to pay tribute to our former 
colleague, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont, who, in 2001, joined with 
me to introduce the first amendment to make full funding of IDEA 
mandatory. In 1975, as ranking member of the House subcommittee on 
special education, Jim Jeffords co-authored what would later be known 
as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, requiring equal 
access to public education for millions of students with disabilities. 
It was a matter of profound disappointment to Jim that, year after 
year, the Federal Government failed to make good on its funding 
promises under that law.
  We tell our children all the time to keep their promises, to live up 
to their commitments, to do as they say they are going to do. We teach 
them that if they fail to do so, other people can be hurt. Well, that 
is what Congress has done by failing to appropriately fund IDEA: We 
have hurt school children all across America. We have pitted children 
with disabilities against other children for a limited pool of school 
funds. We have put parents in the position of not demanding services 
that their child with a disability truly needs, because they have been 
told that the services cost too much and other children would suffer. 
We have hurt school districts, which are forced, in effect, to rob 
Peter to pay Paul in order to provide services to students with 
disabilities. We have also hurt local taxpayers, who are obliged to pay 
higher property taxes and other local taxes

[[Page S4754]]

in order to pay for IDEA services because the Federal Government has 
reneged on its commitment.
  I was pleased that, at the outset of this new Congress, we were able 
to increase funding for the IDEA grants to states program as part of 
the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution to $10.8 billion. But even that level 
of funding is woefully inadequate. That represents only 17.2 percent of 
the additional funding needed to support special education. So we have 
a long way to go to reach the 40 percent level. But it is time to do 
so. It is time for the Federal Government to make good on its promise 
to students with disabilities in this country.
  The IDEA Full Funding Act is pretty straight forward. It authorizes 
increasing amounts of mandatory funding in 8-year increments that, in 
addition to the discretionary funding allocated through the 
Appropriations Committee, will finally meet the Federal Government's 
commitment to educating children with special needs.
  This bill is a win-win-win for the American people. Students with 
disabilities will get the education services that they need in order to 
achieve and succeed. School districts will be able to provide these 
services without cutting into their general education budgets. And 
local property tax payers will get relief.
  Full funding of IDEA is not a partisan issue. We all share an 
interest in ensuring that children with disabilities get an appropriate 
education, and that local school districts do not have to slash their 
general education budgets in order to pay for special education. We all 
share a sense of responsibility to make good on the promise Congress 
made to fully fund its promised share of special education costs.
  So I urge my colleagues to join with Senator Hagel and me in 
sponsoring this bill. In the 30-plus years since we passed IDEA, and in 
the 6 years since we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, the 
expectations for students with disabilities have grown immensely. 
Likewise, we are holding local school systems accountable in 
unprecedented ways. It is high time for us in Congress to also be held 
accountable. It is time for us to make good on our promise to fully 
fund IDEA.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. STABENOW (for herself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Casey, Mr. Levin, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, 
        Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Smith, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Brown, Mr. 
        Menendez, Mr. Burr, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1160. A bill to ensure an abundant and affordable supply of highly 
nutritious fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops for American 
consumers and international markets by enhancing the competitiveness of 
United States-grown specialty crops; to the Committee on Agriculture, 
Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Specialty 
Crop Competition Act of 2007.'' This bipartisan legislation co-
sponsored by the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Stabenow, 
increases the focus on the contribution that specialty crops add to the 
United States agricultural economy. This bill specifically provides the 
proper and necessary attention to many challenges faced throughout each 
segment of the industry.
  Most do not realize the significance of specialty crops and their 
value to the U.S. economy and the health of U.S. citizens. According to 
the United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, 
fruits and vegetables alone added $29.9 billion to the U.S. economy in 
2002. This figure does not even include the contribution of nursery and 
other ornamental plant production, which our bill recognizes.
  The specialty crop industry also accounts for more than $53 billion 
in cash receipts for U.S. producers, which is close to 54 percent of 
the total cash receipts for all crops. A surprising fact to some is 
that my State of Idaho is a top producer of specialty crops. Idaho 
proudly boasts production of cherries, table grapes, apples, onions, 
carrots, several varieties of seed crops and of course one of our most 
notable specialty crops, potatoes.
  Maintaining a viable and sustainable specialty crop industry also 
benefits the health of America's citizens. Obesity continues to plague 
millions of people today and is a very serious and deepening threat not 
only to personal health and well-being, but to the resources of the 
economy as well. This issue is now receiving the necessary attention at 
the highest levels, and specialty crops will continue to play a 
prominent role in reversing the obesity trend.
  The ``Specialty Crop Competition Act'' will also provide a stronger 
position for the U.S. industry in the global market arena. This 
legislation promotes initiatives that will combat diseases, both native 
and foreign, that continue to be used as non-tariff barriers to U.S. 
exports by foreign governments. Additionally, provisions in this bill 
seek improvements to federal regulations and resources that impede 
timely consideration of industry sanitary and phytosanitary petitions.
  This bill does not provide direct subsidies to producers like other 
programs. This legislation takes a major step forward to highlight the 
significance of this industry to the agriculture economy, the benefits 
to the health of U.S. citizens, and the need for a stable, affordable, 
diverse, and secure supply of food.
  Senator Stabenow, I, and our co-sponsors fully intend to work with 
Chairman Harkin, Ranking Member Chambliss and the entire Senate 
Agriculture Committee to include this legislation in the new Farm Bill 
that Congress will soon be debating. Specialty crops have never sat at 
the head of the farm policy table, but their importance to our Nation's 
health, security, and economy cannot be avoided any longer.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Administration 
to consider this comprehensive and necessary legislation as we begin to 
discuss new initiatives for the 2007 Farm Bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Craig, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Schumer, 
        and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 1161. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
authorize the expansion of medicare coverage of medical nutrition 
therapy services; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join with my 
colleagues Senators Craig and Conrad and others in introducing the 
Medicare Medical Nutrition Therapy Act of 2007. This marks the fourth 
consecutive Congress that Senator Craig and I have joined together in 
introducing a bill to expand the current Medicare Medical Nutrition 
Therapy (MNT) benefit.
  In 2000, the Congress passed a bill authorizing Medicare payment for 
MNT services, but only for patients with diabetes and renal diseases. 
Recognizing that many other diseases also have a nutrition component to 
their treatment, Congress asked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
services to report back to Congress their recommendations on MNT 
coverage. That report was submitted to Congress in 2004 and recommended 
that patients with conditions such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, and 
certain cancers be eligible to receive MNT therapy.
  Medical Nutrition Therapy is not nutrition counseling, it is much 
more. It involves a specific diagnosis of a disease, condition, or 
disorder that can be treated with nutrition intervention. That is why 
Congress limited MNT provider status to Registered Dietitians; they 
have the specific training necessary to address nutritional 
interventions as part of a diseased related therapy.
  As we all know, Medicare is under tremendous financial stress. It is 
therefore critically important that bills designed to expand Medicare's 
coverage be both necessary and cost effective. This is exactly why 
Senator Craig and I have been such consistent supporters of expanding 
the MNT benefit.
  Under our current bill, there is no mandated expansion of the 
benefit. Instead, we simply give the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services the authority to expand coverage using the National Coverage 
Determination process. The Congress has mandated that the criteria used 
in that process is necessary and reasonable.
  As a result, the MNT benefit will not be expanded beyond diabetes and 
renal diseases unless such expansion is proven to be cost effective. 
This is likely not a difficult test for MNT to meet.

[[Page S4755]]

There is considerable evidence that MNT is cost effective in the 
treatment of conditions such as pre-diabetes, which surprisingly is not 
eligible for MNT.
  Five years ago, in March of 2002, then HHS Secretary Tommy G. 
Thompson warned Americans of the risks of ``pre-diabetes,'' a condition 
affecting nearly 16 million Americans that sharply raises the risk for 
developing type 2 diabetes and increases the risk of heart disease by 
50 percent.
  HHS-supported research that shows most people with pre-diabetes will 
likely develop diabetes within a decade unless they make modest changes 
in their diet and level of physical activity, which can help them 
reduce their risks and avoid the debilitating disease.
  Secretary Thompson called for physicians to begin screening 
overweight people age 45 and older for pre-diabetes. When Congress 
passed the Medicare Modernization Act in December 2003, it included 
diabetes (and pre-diabetes) screening in the Welcome to Medicare 
physical. So Medicare now covers diabetes screening and will pay for 
MNT for beneficiaries diagnosed with diabetes, but it will not pay for 
nutrition counseling for beneficiaries diagnosed with pre-diabetes. 
This makes no sense.
  The last Congress recognized the critical role that MNT can play in 
the treatment of HIV/AIDS by making MNT one of the Core Medical 
Services under the Ryan White CARE Act. According to the American 
Dietetic Association, ``The importance of nutrition and especially 
medical nutrition therapy to the treatment and management of HIV 
disease cannot be overstated. MNT has become a critical element of 
disease management for persons living with HIV/AIDS.'' Many HIV/AIDs 
patients are eligible for Medicare and these patients are in need of 
MNT to help them manage their disease.
  Since the current MNT benefit is limited under statute to just 
beneficiaries with diabetes and renal diseases, CMS lacks the authority 
to expand the benefit regardless of how cost effective it is or how 
many lives it might save. This makes no sense.
  The bill that Senator Craig and I are introducing today gives the 
experts at CMS the authority to make those decisions. Choosing to rely 
on the National Coverage Determination (NCD) process would allow CMS to 
make decisions based upon the science, and establish the extent to 
which Medicare will cover specific services, procedures or technologies 
on a national basis. This is what the NCD is designed to do. This 
approach also recognizes the importance of saving Medicare dollars.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me today in supporting this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1161

       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 ``Medicare Medical Nutrition 
     Therapy Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. AUTHORIZING EXPANSION OF MEDICARE COVERAGE OF MEDICAL 
                   NUTRITION THERAPY SERVICES.

       (a) Authorizing Expanded Eligible Population.--Section 
     1861(s)(2)(V) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(s)(2)(V)) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating clauses (i) through (iii) as 
     subclauses (I) through (III), respectively, and indenting 
     each such clause an additional 2 ems;
       (2) by striking ``in the case of a beneficiary with 
     diabetes or a renal disease who--'' and inserting ``in the 
     case of a beneficiary--
       ``(i) with diabetes or a renal disease 
     who--'';
       (3) by adding ``or'' at the end of subclause (III) of 
     clause (i), as so redesignated; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ii) who is not described in clause (i) but who has 
     another disease, condition, or disorder for which the 
     Secretary has made a national coverage determination (as 
     defined in section 1869(f)(1)(B)) for the coverage of such 
     services;''.
       (b) Coverage of Services Furnished by Physicians.--Section 
     1861(vv)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(vv)(1)) is amended by inserting ``or which are 
     furnished by a physician'' before the period at the end.
       (c) National Coverage Determination Process.--In making a 
     national coverage determination described in section 
     1861(s)(2)(V)(ii) of the Social Security Act, as added by 
     subsection (a)(4), the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services, acting through the Administrator of the Centers for 
     Medicare & Medicaid Services, shall--
       (1) consult with dietetic and nutrition professional 
     organizations in determining appropriate protocols for 
     coverage of medical nutrition therapy services for 
     individuals with different diseases, conditions, and 
     disorders; and
       (2) consider the degree to which medical nutrition therapy 
     interventions prevent or help prevent the onset or 
     progression of more serious diseases, conditions, or 
     disorders.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to services furnished on or after January 1, 
     2008.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Hagel, 
        Mr. Isakson, and Mr. Webb):
  S. 1163. A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve 
compensation and specially adapted housing for veterans in certain 
cases of impairment of vision involving both eyes, and to provide for 
the use of the National Directory of New Hires for income verification 
purposes; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce the Blinded Veterans 
Paired Organ Act of 2007. This legislation would update the eligibility 
requirements for certain benefits provided to veterans with a service-
connected disability due to blindness. It addresses two areas of 
veterans' law that heretofore excluded many veterans with severe vision 
impairment from accessing benefits that could significantly improve the 
quality of their lives. At a time when great changes are afoot in how 
this Nation prioritizes the care of its veterans, it is still important 
that we also remain attentive to the places where small changes can 
make a large impact. Several of my colleagues, including Senators 
Brown, Feingold, Hagel, Isakson, and Webb, join me in introducing this 
legislation.
  This bill would relax the criteria for vision impairment in two 
separate areas of veterans' benefits law. The first governs eligibility 
for disability compensation under what is known as the ``paired organ 
law.'' The second relates to the criteria for blinded veterans seeking 
VA grants for specially adapted housing.
  The paired organ law provides veterans who sustain a service-
connected injury loss of function in one of their coupled organs, eyes, 
kidneys, ears, lungs, hands, and feet, with eligibility for additional 
compensation should they sustain a non-service-connected injury or loss 
of function in the companion organ.
  With respect to vision, VA currently requires veterans to demonstrate 
a visual acuity of less than 5/200 in the non-service-connected eye in 
order to receive compensation for full service-connected blindness. 
However, this requires veterans to demonstrate more severe visual 
impairment to qualify for benefits than if the standard definition of 
blindness were used by VA. The standard definition, accepted by the 
American Medical Association, the Social Security Administration, and 
the motor vehicle license laws of all 50 States, is a visual acuity of 
20/200 or less, or a peripheral field of vision of 20 degrees or less.
  This difference in standards was initially brought to the attention 
of Representative Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin several years ago by Dr. 
James Allen, a veteran of the Korean War and a long-time 
ophthalmologist at the Madison VA hospital. Representative Baldwin 
subsequently engaged in a long fight on behalf of blinded veterans, 
ultimately securing passage of a bill this March which would change 
existing law. I would like to thank Representative Baldwin and Dr. 
Allen for their hard work on behalf of veterans who are struggling with 
vision impairment as a result of their service and I am proud to join 
them in their efforts through introduction of this companion bill.
  With respect to VA grants for specially adapted housing for blinded 
veterans, VA disburses grants of up to $10,000 to veterans with a 
service-connected disability due to blindness in both eyes for the 
purpose of adapting their homes to accommodate their disability. 
However, as with the paired organ statute, current law requires that 
veterans have a visual acuity of 5/200 or less in order to be eligible 
for these grants. This legislation would correct this standard as well, 
making

[[Page S4756]]

specially adapted housing grants available to veterans with a visual 
acuity of 20/200 or less, or a peripheral field of vison of 20 degrees 
or less.
  This legislation is particularly important at this moment when so 
many of the men and women in our Armed Forces are deployed overseas in 
combat zones. Traumatic brain injury is frequently described as the 
``signature wound'' of the conflict in Iraq and it is frequently 
accompanied by damage to the veteran's vision. Thus, there are numerous 
veterans recovering from battle wounds right now who can benefit from 
this legislation both in the immediate future and down the road. Some 
who have suffered severe vision impairment will be able to speed their 
readjustment by adapting their homes to accommodate the disability. And 
those who have suffered blindness in one eye will be assured that they 
are provided for in the event that they lose sight in the other eye.
  With more and more servicemembers deployed in combat zones everyday, 
we are constantly reminded of the great sacrifice they make for this 
Nation. We owe it to them, at the very least, to ensure that they are 
not required to shoulder an undue burden when it comes to qualifying 
for veterans' benefits. Thus, I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join 
me in supporting this important legislation on behalf of blinded 
veterans.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
        Graham, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska):
  S. 1164. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
improve patient access to, and utilization of, the colorectal cancer 
screening benefit under the Medicare Program; to the Committee on 
Finance.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I introduce the Colon Cancer Screen 
for Life Act of 2007 along with my colleagues, Senator Collins, Senator 
Lieberman, and Senator Graham. Many people are aware that colon cancer 
is the second most deadly cancer in the United States. In 2006 alone, 
according to the American Cancer Society, more than 150,000 new cases 
were diagnosed and more than 50,000 Americans died from colon cancer. 
In my own State of Maryland, nearly 1,000 people lost their lives to 
this disease last year. What people are not as aware of, however, is 
that colon cancer is preventable with appropriate screening, highly 
detectable, and curable if found early. The purpose of our bill is to 
increase the rate of participation in colon cancer screening and ensure 
that we are saving every life that we can from this deadly disease.
  Medicare coverage for colorectal cancer screening through colonoscopy 
was authorized in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and further expanded 
in 2000 when the colonoscopy benefit was added for high risk 
beneficiaries. Under this Medicare benefit, a low risk beneficiary is 
entitled to receive a colonoscopy once every ten years and a high risk 
beneficiary is entitled to a colonoscopy every two years. Despite this, 
recent studies have shown that patients are not utilizing coverage of 
CRC preventive screenings. According to the Government Accountability 
Office, since the implementation of the benefit in 1998, the percentage 
of Medicare beneficiaries receiving either a screening or a diagnostic 
colonoscopy has increased by 1 percent.
  Since providing coverage for this lifesaving service, Congress has 
discovered many barriers that stand in the way of patients having 
access to the colonoscopy benefit. One reason for such low utilization 
is that the physician reimbursement has been cut by 33 percent since 
this benefit was enacted. In 1997, a colonoscopy performed in a 
hospital outpatient department or an ambulatory surgery center was 
reimbursed at approximately $301. Now, in 2007, that reimbursement is 
only $198.20.
  Some may argue that reductions in Medicare payments are necessary to 
keep the Medicare Program financially viable. While I strongly support 
efforts to eliminate wasteful spending in Medicare, I can assure my 
colleagues that is not the case here. To the contrary, providing 
adequate reimbursement for screening will result in Medicare savings 
and better health outcomes. Let me explain. Our health care system 
spends an estimated $8.3 billion annually to treat newly diagnosed 
cases of colon cancer. The average cost of direct medical care for each 
cancer episode is estimated to be between $35,000 for early stage 
detection and $80,000 for later stage detection. So each time that 
cancer is not detected early, that individual faces an increased risk 
of developing the disease and needing treatment that costs Medicare 
Program tens of thousands of dollars.
  Patient participation has also been is that currently Medicare does 
not cover a preoperative visit with a physician prior to screening. 
While it is true that a colonoscopy is a minimally invasive procedure, 
an anesthetic is used to sedate the patient to make the colonoscopy 
less uncomfortable. Because the patient is going to be sedated, medical 
standards require doctors to visit with the patient before surgery to 
determine and protect against any risks, such as drug interaction, and 
to give them preoperative instructions. Recognizing the importance of 
these visits, Medicare does reimburse for a consultation prior to a 
diagnostic colonoscopy. A preoperative visit is no less medically 
necessary before a preventive screening, and therefore should be 
reimbursed in the same manner.
  Finally, some beneficiaries may delay seeking colorectal cancer 
screening because they cannot afford Medicare's Part B deductible. 
Recognizing this, Congress recently took an important step by waiving 
the Part B deductible for preventive colon cancer screenings, effective 
January 1, 2007. However, gastroenterologists are now reporting that, 
if polyps or other signs of cancer are discovered in the course of a 
preventive colonoscopy, the procedure is then considered to be 
diagnostic and Medicare requires that the beneficiary pay a deductible. 
Congress needs to ensure that beneficiaries are not dissuaded from 
getting this lifesaving procedure by the concern that they might have 
to pay a deductible if a polyp is discovered. Our legislation clarifies 
congressional intent to ensure that CMS will waive the deductible in 
all screenings so that Medicare beneficiaries are not confronted with 
an unexpected additional expense, should the procedure's coding change.
  The Colon Cancer Screen for Life Act would eliminate every one of 
these barriers, and in doing so, save lives. First, this legislation 
would increase reimbursement for colorectal cancer related procedures 
to ensure that physicians are able to continue to perform these 
valuable services. Reimbursement for procedures performed in a 
physician's office would be increased by up to 10 percent and 
reimbursement for procedures performed in Hospital Outpatient 
Department, HOPD, or Ambulatory Surgery Center, ASC, would be increased 
by up to 30 percent. The bill would also provide Medicare coverage for 
the preoperative doctor's visit conducted prior to a screening 
colonoscopy. Finally, the bill contains a technical provision to 
require that the deductible is waived whether or not the beneficiary's 
screening was clean or results in a biopsy or lesion removal.
  More than 50,000 Americans will die from colon cancer this year 
alone. Ninety percent of these cases might have been prevented. We 
cannot afford to wait another moment before doing something to 
eliminate these and other barriers that are standing in the way of 
preventing colon cancer.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this important 
legislation and enact it this year.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN:
  S. 115. A bill to require Federal buildings to be designed, 
constructed, and certified to meet, at a minimum, the Leadership in 
Energy and Environmental Design green building rating standard 
identified as silver by the United States Green Building Council, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, we need to make this country energy 
independent, and to enact a comprehensive, long-term energy policy that 
will give Americans the energy they need, while protecting our 
environment and our national security.
  As one step in this direction, today I am introducing the American 
Green Building Act.

[[Page S4757]]

  Our Federal Government is the largest single energy consumer in the 
world.
  Buildings account for over a third of America's energy consumption. 
Buildings also account for 49 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 25 
percent of nitrous oxide emissions, and 10 percent of particulate 
emissions, all of which damage our air quality. Buildings produce 38 
percent of the country's carbon dioxide emissions--the chief pollutant 
blamed for global warming.
  Federal buildings are a large part of this problem.
  Energy used in Federal buildings in fiscal year 2002 accounted for 38 
percent of the total Federal energy bill. Total Federal buildings and 
facilities energy expenditures in fiscal year 2002 were $3.73 billion.
  The American Green Building Act would require all new Federal 
buildings to live up to green building LEED, Leadership and Energy in 
Environmental Design, Silver standards, set by the United States Green 
Building Council. These standards were created to promote sustainable 
site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials 
selection, and indoor environmental quality. The average LEED-certified 
building uses 32 percent less electricity, 26 percent less natural gas 
and 36 percent less total energy. LEED-certified buildings in the U.S. 
are in aggregate saving 150,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide 
reduction, equivalent to 30,000 passenger cars not driven for one year. 
A single LEED-certified building is designed to save an average of 352 
metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, which is equivalent 
to 70 passenger cars not driven for one year. This standard would only 
apply to Federal buildings for which the design phase for construction 
or major renovation is begun after the date of enactment of the 
provision. The General Services Administration or relevant agency may 
waive this requirement for a building if it finds that the requirement 
cannot be met because of the quantity of energy required to carry out 
the building's purpose or because the building is used to carry out an 
activity relating to national security.
  My bill will also require that significant new development or 
redevelopment projects undertaken by the Federal Government plan for 
storm water runoff. The hardened surfaces of modern life, such as 
roofs, parking lots, and paved streets, prevent rainfall from 
infiltrating the soil. Over 100 million acres of land have been 
developed in the United States. Development is increasing faster than 
population: Population growth in the Chesapeake Watershed, for example, 
increased by 8 percent during the 1990s, but the rate of impervious 
surface increased by 42 percent. Development not only leads to 
landscape changes but also to contamination of storm water runoff by 
pollutants throughout the watershed. Storm water runoff can carry 
pollutants to our streams, rivers, and oceans, and poses a significant 
problem for the Chesapeake Bay. Every other pollution source in the 
Chesapeake is decreasing, but pollution from storm water runoff is 
increasing. In urbanized areas, increased storm water runoff can cause 
increased flooding, stream bank erosion, degradation of in-stream 
habitat and a reduction in groundwater quality. For these reasons, as 
the Federal Government moves forward with development, we need to plan 
for how to manage storm water runoff. The storm water provisions in the 
American Green Building Act will be used to intercept precipitation and 
allow it to infiltrate rather than being collected on and conveyed from 
impervious surfaces.
  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. 1165

       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 ``American Green Building Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) LEED silver standard.--The term ``LEED silver 
     standard'' means the Leadership in Energy and Environmental 
     Design green building rating standard identified as silver by 
     the United States Green Building Council.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.

     SEC. 3. GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL BUILDINGS.

       (a) Requirement.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a 
     Federal building for which the design phase for construction 
     or major renovation is begun after the date of enactment of 
     this Act shall be designed, constructed, and certified to 
     meet, at a minimum, the LEED silver standard.
       (b) Determination of Impracticability.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (3)(B), the 
     requirement under subsection (a) shall not apply to a Federal 
     building if the head of the Federal agency with jurisdiction 
     over the Federal building, in accordance with the factors 
     described in paragraph (2), determines that compliance with 
     the requirement under subsection (a) would be impracticable.
       (2) Factors for determination.--In determining whether 
     compliance with the requirement under subsection (a) would be 
     impracticable, the head of the Federal agency with 
     jurisdiction over the Federal building shall determine--
       (A) the quantity of energy required by each activity 
     carried out in the Federal building; and
       (B) whether the Federal building is used to carry out an 
     activity relating to national security.
       (3) Report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the head of 
     each Federal agency shall prepare and submit to the Secretary 
     a report that includes a description of each Federal building 
     for which the head of the Agency with jurisdiction over the 
     Federal building determined that compliance with the 
     requirement under subsection (a) would be impracticable.
       (B) Review by secretary.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date on which the Secretary receives a report from a head of 
     a Federal agency under subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall 
     review the report and notify the head of the Federal agency 
     on whether any Federal building described in the report 
     submitted by the head of the Federal agency shall be required 
     to comply with the requirement under subsection (a).
       (4) Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this subsection.
       (c) Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     the results of a study comparing--
       (A) the expected energy savings resulting from the 
     implementation of this section; with
       (B) energy savings under all other Federal energy savings 
     requirements.
       (2) Inclusion.--The Secretary shall include in the report 
     any recommendations for changes to Federal law necessary to 
     reduce or eliminate duplicative or inconsistent Federal 
     energy savings requirements.

     SEC. 4. STORM WATER RUNOFF REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL 
                   DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

       The sponsor of any development or redevelopment project 
     involving property with a footprint that exceeds 5,000 square 
     feet and that is federally-owned or federally-financed shall 
     use site planning, design, construction, and maintenance 
     strategies for the property to maintain, to the maximum 
     extent technically feasible, predevelopment hydrology with 
     regard to the temperature, rate, volume, and duration of 
     flow.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WARNER:
  S. 1166. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 
from gross income certain zone compensation of civilian employees of 
the United States; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Federal 
Employee Combat Zone Tax Parity Act, which would provide parity to 
civilian Federal employees by extending the tax credit currently 
received by military personnel in combat zones to the civilian Federal 
employees working alongside them. My fellow Virginian, Congressman 
Frank Wolf, has introduced a similar bill in the House of 
Representatives.
  In addition, several Federal employee organizations, such as the 
American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the National 
Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), the Financial Management Association 
(FMA), the Senior Executives Association (SEA), the American Foreign 
Service Association (AFSA), and the National Federation of Federal 
Employees (NFFE), strongly support this legislation.
  As of today, I have made eleven separate trips to Iraq and 
Afghanistan to see firsthand the work of our military personnel, which 
is essential to success in these regions. In addition, the work of our 
Federal civilian employees in these regions is significantly important.

[[Page S4758]]

  At the moment, a majority of the work in the reconstruction of these 
countries is being done by the military and the Department of State 
(DOS). These dedicated men and women deserve our gratitude. However, as 
I have said on a number of occasions, our challenging task requires the 
coordination and work of Federal agencies across the spectrum.
  Regardless of whether one is in the military or a civilian, there are 
certain risks and hardships associated with working overseas. As a 
result, the Federal Government provides certain incentives to 
individuals when they take on extremely challenging jobs. For example, 
those in the military working in a combat zone receive the Combat Zone 
Tax Credit.
  This tax credit permits military personnel working in combat zones to 
exclude a certain amount of income from their Federal income taxes. 
This benefit for the military was established in 1913.
  Private contractors working in Iraq and Afghanistan get a similar 
benefit. Under the Foreign Earned Income Tax Credit, contractors are 
allowed to exclude a portion of their income from taxes while they work 
abroad, like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  To date, however, no similar benefit exists for Federal employees 
serving in the same combat zones. I do not believe it is fair for our 
Federal employees to be excluded from the same benefits available to 
military personnel and private contractors in the same combat zone.
  The Commonwealth of Virginia, of which I have been honored to serve 
for the last 28 years in the Senate, is home to over 200,000 Federal 
employees. I have long been a strong supporter of our Federal employees 
as I have been for our military personnel.
  Our efforts in the war on terrorism can only be successful with a 
highly skilled and experienced workforce. I can personally attest to 
the dedication of civil service employees throughout the Federal 
Government. Since the September 11th attacks, Federal employees have 
been relocated, reassigned, and worked long hours under strenuous 
circumstances without complaints, proving time and again their loyalty 
to their country is first and foremost.
  During my service as Secretary of the Navy--during which I was 
privileged to have some 650,000 civilian employees working side by side 
with the uniformed Navy--I valued very highly the sense of teamwork 
between the civilian and uniformed members of the United States Navy. 
Teamwork is an intrinsic military value, in my judgment, and essential 
to mission accomplishment. A sense of parity and fairness is important 
for developing this teamwork.
  In Iraq and Afghanistan, the teamwork of the entire Federal 
Government is essential to harness our overall efforts to secure a 
measure of democracy for the peoples of those countries, and we need to 
make it easier for our Federal employees to participate.
  Last year, I offered additional legislation that became law under an 
emergency supplemental bill to achieve this goal. My bill, S. 2600, 
provided the heads of agencies other than DOS and the Department of 
Defense (DOD) with the authority, at their discretion, to give their 
employees who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan allowances, benefits, and 
gratuities comparable to those provided to State Department and DOD 
employees serving in those countries.
  At that time, the agency heads of non-DOD and DOS agencies did not 
have such authority, and it is essential, as part of the U.S. effort to 
bring democracy and freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan, that agency heads 
be able to give their workers in those countries the same benefits as 
those they work beside.
  In the last estimate, there are almost 2,000 Federal employees 
working a variety of jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am grateful for 
their hard work in potentially dangerous situations. And, I know there 
are many other Federal employees who are anxious to serve their country 
and engage in these efforts, but it is a lot to risk.
  Providing parity in this important tax credit would provide a 
significant incentive for individuals to take on this challenge--a 
challenge that America desperately needs Federal employees to 
undertake.
  Throughout the world, America's civil servants are serving our 
government and our people, often in dangerous situations. They are on 
the ground in the war on terrorism taking over new roles to relieve 
military personnel of tasks civilian employees can perform. They are 
playing a vital role in the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan.
  We have a long tradition in Congress of recognizing the valuable 
contributions of our Federal employees in both the military service and 
in the civil service by providing fair and equitable treatment. This 
bill gives us the ability to continue this tradition while at the same 
time providing an important incentive to help America meet its needs.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in support of this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1166

       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 ``Federal Employee Combat Zone 
     Tax Parity Act''.

     SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME FOR CERTAIN COMBAT ZONE 
                   COMPENSATION OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES.

       (a) In General.--Section 112 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to certain combat zone compensation of 
     members of the Armed Forces) is amended by redesignating 
     subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (d) and (e), 
     respectively, and by inserting after subsection (b) the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(c) Civilian Employees of the United States Government.--
       ``(1) In general.--Gross income does not include so much of 
     the compensation as does not exceed the maximum amount 
     specified in subsection (b) for active service as an employee 
     of the United States for any month during any part of which 
     such employee--
       ``(A) served in a combat zone, or
       ``(B) was hospitalized as a result of wounds, disease, or 
     injury incurred while serving in a combat zone; but this 
     subparagraph shall not apply for any month beginning more 
     than 2 years after the date of the termination of combatant 
     activities in such zone.
       ``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) Employee of the united states.--The term `employee of 
     the United States' has the meaning given such term by section 
     2105 of title 5, United States Code, and includes--
       ``(i) an individual in the commissioned corps of the Public 
     Health Service or the commissioned corps of the National 
     Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
       ``(ii) an individual not otherwise described in the 
     preceding provisions of this subparagraph who is treated as 
     an employee of the United States or an agency thereof for 
     purposes of section 911(b).
       ``(B) Active service.--The term `active service' means 
     active Federal service by an employee of the United 
     States.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 2201(b) of such Code is amended by striking 
     ``112(c)'' both places it appears and inserting ``112(d)''.
       (2) The heading for section 112 of such Code is amended to 
     read as follows:

     ``SEC. 112. CERTAIN COMBAT ZONE COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF 
                   THE ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE 
                   UNITED STATES.''.

       (3) The item relating to section 112 in the table of 
     sections for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such 
     Code is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 112. Certain combat zone compensation of members of the Armed 
              Forces and civilian employees of the United States.''.

       (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. HARKIN:
  S. 1167. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 in order to 
provide funding for student loan repayment for civil legal assistance 
attorneys; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Legal Aid 
Attorney Loan Repayment Act. This important legislation is critical to 
ensuring that basic civil liberties are protected for all of our 
citizens. Our promise of ``equal justice under law'' rings hollow if 
those who are most vulnerable are denied access to representation. 
Legal Aid attorneys across the country protect the safety, security, 
and health of low-income citizens. When a senior citizen is the victim 
of a financial scam, when a family faces the loss of their home, or, 
all too often, when a woman

[[Page S4759]]

seeks protection from abuse, Legal Aid is there to help them. Legal Aid 
attorneys are critical to ensuring that poverty is not a barrier to 
accessing the justice system.
  Despite the importance of the services they provide, almost half of 
the eligible people seeking assistance from Legal Aid are being turned 
away because of a lack of funding. Additional qualified and experienced 
attorneys would alleviate some of the shortages facing Legal Aid.
  I started my legal career as a legal service lawyer, and it is an 
experience that I will never forget. It helped shape many of my views 
about how government can most effectively help those in need. Working 
as a Legal Aid attorney is one of the most rewarding career choices a 
young lawyer can make.
  Unfortunately, these days, it's harder and harder for newly minted 
lawyers to make the choice that I made to work for Legal Aid. The 
average starting salary for a Legal Aid lawyer is now $35,000. But the 
average annual loan repayment burden for a new law school graduate is 
$12,000! Many law graduates who are able to take positions with Legal 
Aid end up leaving after two or three years because their debt is too 
burdensome. They leave at a time when they have gained the necessary 
experience to provide valuable services to low-income clients, creating 
a revolving door of inexperienced lawyers within Legal Aid services.
  That is why I am introducing this bill to provide a loan-repayment 
program for new law graduates who chose to work for Legal Aid. Such 
programs are available for Federal prosecutors and other Federal 
employees. But, for Legal Aid attorneys--who have the lowest incomes--
there is not adequate access to loan-repayment programs. Estimates 
suggest that there are fewer than 2,000 attorneys who would need the 
assistance of such a program. This bill builds on existing loan-
repayment and retention programs for lawyers in other fields by 
providing partial loan-repayment assistance to full time civil legal 
assistance lawyers. Recipients who receive the loan-repayment 
assistance must commit to a minimum of three years of service. And the 
bill prioritizes awards for those who have practiced public service law 
with less than five years of experience. This program is critical to 
ensure that lawyers who want to commit to public service are able to do 
so.
  We have a responsibility to ensure that all citizens have appropriate 
protection under the law. By establishing a loan-repayment program, 
Legal Aid programs are better able to attract and retain qualified 
personnel. I urge my colleagues to support this critical legislation to 
reduce the barriers to public service and protect access to legal 
representation for all of our citizens.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ALEXANDER:
  S. 1168. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to establish a regulatory 
program for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides mercury, and carbon dioxide 
emissions from the electric generating sector; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to reduce 
air pollution and the threat of global warming by enacting strict 
standards on the four major pollutants from powerplants. I send the 
legislation to the desk and ask it be introduced.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately 
referred.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Joe 
Lieberman, of Connecticut, who chairs a key environmental subcommittee, 
will be the bill's lead cosponsor, so it will be known as the 
Alexander-Lieberman Clean Air Climate Change Act of 2007. It will 
establish an aggressive but practical and achievable set of limits on 
four key pollutants. This is a little different sort of clean air and 
climate change bill, and I would like to talk for a few minutes about 
exactly what it does and why we are doing it this way.
  Most of us in the Senate can be measured by where we come from. I 
come from the Great Smoky Mountains. When I go home tomorrow afternoon, 
after we hopefully start the competitiveness legislation debate, I will 
go to my home about 2 miles from the Great Smoky Mountains National 
Park. When the Cherokees named the Great Smoky Mountains, which today 
have become our most visited national park, they were not talking about 
smog and soot. Unfortunately, today they probably would be. There has 
been a lot of recent progress, but air pollution is still a serious 
health problem, causing illnesses from asthma to premature death, and 
making it harder to attract new jobs.
  To be specific about that, recently, over the last 20 years, the auto 
industry has become important to Tennessee.
  Tennessee was in competition recently for a Toyota plant that nearly 
came to Chattanooga but went to Mississippi. In the last 25 years, one-
third of our manufacturing jobs have become auto jobs. I can remember 
when there were not any, and I was Governor, and the Nissan plant 
decided to come to Tennessee in 1980. The first thing I had to do as 
Governor was to help them go down to the air quality board and get a 
permit to paint 500,000 cars and trucks a year. That is a lot of paint, 
and produces a lot of emissions in the area. If Tennessee had not had 
clean air at that time, that Nissan plant would have been in Georgia. 
So clean air is not only about our health, although the more we learn 
about the effects of nitrogen pollutants and sulfur pollutants, the 
more that we learn that it and mercury are about our health, clean air 
is also about our ability to attract jobs. So we want to make sure that 
when Nissan or Toyota or any of the suppliers of any automobile 
company--General Motors with a Saturn plant in Tennessee--when they 
want to look at our State for expansion--they are not limited by our 
inability to meet clean air standards.
  We also have jobs that come from another direction. In Tennessee, 
tourism is big business. Many people know about Yellowstone in the 
West, but the Great Smoky Mountains have three times as many visitors 
as any Western park, nearly 10 million visitors a year, and they come 
to see the Great Smokies, not to see smog, not to see soot. They want 
to enjoy it.
  When I go into Sevierville, Dolly Parton's hometown, and ask the 
Chamber of Commerce right there next to Maryville where I grew up, what 
is your No. 1 issue, these conservative Republicans in Sevier County 
say to me: Clean air. That is what the Chamber of Commerce there says, 
clean air. So we Tennesseans think clean air is important for our 
health, because we love to look at our mountains and because of our 
jobs.
  I am the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority Congressional 
Caucus. I sit on the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee. I 
am especially delighted that Senator Lieberman, who is the cosponsor of 
this legislation, not only is on that committee, but he chairs one of 
the major subcommittees on the Environment and Public Works Committee 
that has to do with global warming.
  What we are hoping is that this legislation, which I am about to 
describe, along with legislation Senator Carper of Delaware is 
introducing today or tomorrow, will help move along the debate about 
how we deal with global warming in our country.
  In the legislation I have presented, the Alexander-Lieberman 
legislation, we seek to preserve our jobs while we clean the air and 
preserve the planet. We have a number of concerns in our country, and 
global warming is only one of those. So I would argue that the 
provisions we have set out are aggressive, but they are practical and 
they are achievable. They set schedules for powerplants to reduce 
emissions for sulfur dioxide, for nitrogen oxide, for mercury, and for 
carbon dioxide. Doing so will relieve some of the worst air-related 
health environmental problems such as ozone, acid rain, mercury 
contamination, and global warming.
  I think it is important to note that one of the differences with this 
Alexander-Lieberman bill is it proposes carbon caps only on powerplants 
that produce electricity; it does not propose carbon caps on the 
economy as a whole.
  Now, why would we only do that? Well, here are the reasons for that: 
No. 1, when we talk about global warming and carbon, we are dealing 
with a huge, complex economy. This country of ours produces and uses 
about 25 percent of all of the energy in the world. We have businesses 
that range from the shoe shop to Google to chemical plants.

[[Page S4760]]

  I think we have to be very careful in Washington about coming up with 
great schemes and great ideas that sound good here but that might not 
apply to everyone across the country, because everyone across the 
country has a natural conservatism about the wisdom of those who are in 
Washington. We could scare them to death with some talk of an 
economywide global warming bill. So I am more comfortable thinking 
sector by sector. I want our steps to be practical and cost effective.
  I do believe a market-based cap and trade system for powerplants 
makes a lot of sense. Powerplants are the logical place to start with 
carbon regulation. Powerplants produce about 40 percent of all the 
carbon in our economy. Powerplants are increasing emissions of carbon 
at a rate faster than any other large segment in our economy. We have 
selected in our legislation what we call a market-based cap and trade 
system to regulate the amount of carbon that is produced. This is not a 
new idea. The market-based cap and trade system was actually introduced 
by a Republican administration in which I served in the Cabinet, the 
first George Bush. It was a part of the Clean Air Act amendments in 
1990. It was introduced because we were concerned about the amount of 
sulfur coming out of powerplants. Basically it created a lot of 
flexibility for those powerplants. It used a market system. We have now 
had 15 years experience with it. It has worked very well. It has 
significantly reduced the amount of sulfur in the air. It has done it 
in a way that most everyone concedes is the lowest possible cost of 
regulation.
  It is a minimal amount of rules from here, a maximum amount of market 
decisions and individual decisions by individual utilities. So we have 
had that system in effect since 1990. There has been a similar system 
in effect for nitrogen. There has been a similar cap and trade system 
in Europe. We have a lot of experience with cap and trade. So we have 
elected to use a similar cap and trade market-based system to regulate 
the carbon coming out of the same smokestacks that sulfur, nitrogen, 
and mercury come out of. We can already measure the amount of carbon 
coming out, so we do not have to guess about that. We do not have to 
invent a new system.

  We do have to be careful about what the standards are, what the dates 
are. We want to know what the costs will be to the ratepayers. We want 
to keep electric rates as low as we possibly can, as well as making the 
energy clean.
  But if we are concerned about global warming in this generation, 
because I think we should be, then powerplants are a good place to 
start. It is time to finish the job of cleaning the air of sulfur, of 
too much sulfur, too much nitrogen, and too much mercury. It is time to 
take the right first step with controlling carbon emissions. It is time 
to acknowledge that climate change is real, that human activity is a 
big part of the problem, and that it is up to us to act.
  Now not only am I glad to be working with Senator Lieberman, who will 
be the lead cosponsor of this legislation, he, of course, is already a 
leader in this area and he has an economywide piece of legislation 
which he introduced. Senator McCain in the last session--I am not about 
to try to speak for another Senator, but I think Senator Lieberman is 
taking the position he would like to see several good trains moving 
down the track toward the same station in hopes that one of them 
eventually gets there, and that we can learn from each other.
  That is the attitude I take with the legislation Senator Carper has 
described today and that he is introducing today or tomorrow. Senator 
Carper and I have worked together through two Congresses on four 
pollutant legislation. A lot has happened since we started working. For 
example, the Administration, to its credit, through the Environmental 
Protection Agency, has stiffened requirements for sulfur and nitrogen. 
I applaud President Bush for that. They are very good requirements. 
They have also proposed the regulation of mercury for the first time in 
our country's history. I applaud the EPA for that. So a lot has changed 
since Senator Carper and I first started.
  Also we have learned a lot. Senators who do not always have their 
mouths open learn a lot. We have discovered one of the most difficult 
areas in fashioning a market-based cap and trade system for sulfur or 
for nitrogen or for carbon is who pays for it. We called that the 
allocation system.
  Senator Carper and I started out with what we called an output 
system. We thought that sounded pretty good. It would be based upon the 
amount of electricity you would be putting out. But the more we studied 
it, he came to a different conclusion and I came to a different 
conclusion. I came to the conclusion that we should use historical 
emissions. In other words, we are saying to a utility in the United 
States: We are about to impose upon you some requirements for cleaning 
up more sulfur, cleaning up more nitrogen, cleaning up mercury--for the 
first time--and regulating the emissions of carbon for the first time, 
and I understand that is a significant cost.
  That capital cost will have to be borne in the end by ratepayers. So, 
in my view, it seems to me that the fairest way to impose that cost 
would be through what we call the historical allocation system. That is 
the way we have done it with allowances for sulfur and nitrogen for the 
last 15 years.
  In fact, the input or the historical allowance system as the way to 
pay the bill has been the way it is done almost everywhere, I believe.
  But there is another way to allocate that is called the output. 
Senator Carper selected that. There is still a third way to allocate 
the costs of doing whatever regulation we do, and that is called the 
auction. A market-based cap and trade system sounds complicated, but it 
is not so complicated. It basically says to each emitter of one of the 
pollutants: You have an allowance to emit one ton of that sulfur or of 
that carbon, and as long as you emit that much, you are okay. If you 
emit more than that, you are going to have to buy allowances to emit 
that much more from someone else. So it costs you more. Or if you emit 
less, you can sell your allowance. Then as the law goes along over the 
years, 2009 or 2010 to 2015, the amount of pollutants that come down, 
your allowance total drops down as well.
  One of the favored proposals mostly--and especially by many 
environmental groups--is an auction of those allowances. Well, I have 
resisted. I have been careful about the auctions. I have been to a lot 
of auctions. I know they must have them in Minnesota as well as 
Tennessee. I have yet to see one where the purpose of the auction was 
not to get the highest possible price.
  Well, if I am paying my electric bill down in Memphis, or if I am at 
Eastman Chemical in east Tennessee or ALCOA trying to keep my electric 
costs in line, I am not interested in my Senator coming to Washington 
and having an auction to raise my electric rates to the highest 
possible price.
  So also there is the temptation that if you auction off these 
allowances, and there are a lot of them when we are talking about 
carbon allowances, many more than when we are talking about sulfur 
allowances over the last 15 years. They will bring in a lot of money. 
And whenever you bring in a lot of money, and 100 different Senators 
and lots of Congressmen know there is a pot of money, they will come up 
with a lot of ways to spend that money. And where will that money come 
from? Well, it has got to come from the man or women or family paying 
the electric bill in Nashville, or Knoxville. So I have been 
conservative about the use of auctions.
  Senator Lieberman and I, in this bill, say 75 percent of the 
allowance comes from historical emissions and 25 percent are sold in an 
auction. This gets way down in the weeds, as we say. But one of the 
things that I think may be beneficial from Senator Carper going ahead 
with his bill, which relies on an output system that becomes a 100-
percent auction, and way we go ahead in the Alexander-Lieberman bill 
with 75-percent input and 25-percent auction, may be that our 
colleagues will do as we have been doing over the last few months, and 
spend a little more time understanding allowances and auctions, and we 
can come to a better conclusion about this.
  I value greatly my relationship with Senator Carper and respect his 
leadership in this area. He chairs one of the principal subcommittees 
on the Environment Committee upon which I serve

[[Page S4761]]

and the Presiding Officer serves. What I hope is he and I are moving 
into a new stage of our working relationship on clean air and climate 
change, and the result of that will be that all of our ideas will be 
out in front of our colleagues and that it will move the debate along.
  I would emphasize, we agree, he and I, on a lot more than we disagree 
on. In fact, I believe on all of the standards and deadlines for 
meeting those standards for nitrogen, sulfur, and mercury, we agree. We 
agree there should not be a cap and trade system for mercury because 
mercury is a neurotoxin, and down in east Tennessee where I live, we do 
not want TVA buying a lot of allowances so they can emit a lot more 
mercury, because it doesn't go up in the air and blow into North 
Carolina, it goes up in the air and comes right down on top of us, for 
the most part. We don't want that.
  We don't want that. The more we learn about mercury, the less we want 
it. We don't have cap and trade for mercury, although we do suggest 
that for carbon.
  Climate change has become the issue of the moment. Everybody is 
talking about it. There are movies about it. The Vice President was 
here testifying about it. It is not the only issue that faces us that 
has to do with air pollution. I am more concerned in Tennessee about 
sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury than I am about carbon. That is why this 
is a four-pollutant bill. We ought to address all of these at once.
  I was in this body 40 years ago as a staff assistant working for 
Howard Baker. I remember very well when Senator Baker, a Republican, 
and Senator Muskie of Maine, a Democrat, worked together on the 
committee on which the Presiding Officer and I now serve. They passed 
the first Clean Water Act and the first Clean Air Act. The Clean Water 
Act, some people have said, is the most important piece of urban 
renewal legislation ever enacted because the rivers of America had 
gotten so dirty, nobody wanted to live on them. The rivers of America 
are where most of our great cities are. As soon as they were cleaned 
up, people moved back to the cities and around the rivers. That was 
1970 and 1971.
  It is appropriate to think about that now because Earth Day is coming 
up this weekend. I can remember Earth Day, which began in 1970. 
Suddenly the environment, which had been an issue that was reserved for 
only a few people, became a national craze. It was almost like a hula 
hoop. Everybody was interested in the environment and recycling. Former 
Senator Gaylord Nelson was a leader in creating Earth Day. I can 
remember sitting in a meeting of President Nixon and the Republican 
leadership in 1970 when I was on the White House staff, and President 
Nixon was trying to explain to the Republican leaders the importance of 
environmental issues. It was 8 o'clock in the morning, and they weren't 
listening very well. It was a new subject. But Gaylord Nelson was doing 
it. The kids were doing it. People were recycling. The Republican 
President was talking to the Republican leadership, and Senator Baker, 
Senator Muskie, and the Congress passed the first Clean Air and Clean 
Water Acts.
  Many of us who have lived a while can remember things are better 
today in many ways. When I was a student at Vanderbilt in Nashville, it 
was so smoggy in the mornings, you couldn't see downtown. Your clothes 
got dirty during the day. Things got gradually better. In 1990, when 
the first President Bush was in office, we passed important Clean Air 
Act amendments, and the first cap and trade system for sulfur began. 
What also happened was that we learned more about how damaging these 
pollutants are to our health.
  As a result, the standards which we once thought were high seemed 
low. Knoxville, the biggest city near where I grew up, near the Smoky 
Mountains, is the 14th most polluted city for ozone. Ozone irritates 
lung tissue, increases the risk of dying prematurely, increases the 
swelling of lung tissue. It increases the risk of being hospitalized 
with worsened lung diseases and triggering asthma attacks. At risk in 
Knoxville County alone are 176,000 children, 112,000 seniors, 15,000 
children with asthma, and 50,000 adults with asthma. Ozone is not 
emitted directly from tailpipes and smokestacks. The raw ingredients 
come from coal-fired powerplants and cars.
  Sulfur is in many ways our biggest problem. It is the primary 
contributor to haze. It causes difficulty in breathing. It causes 
damage to lung tissue and respiratory disease and premature death.
  We know that mercury is also a problem. Monitoring by the National 
Park Service in the Great Smoky Mountains has found high levels of 
mercury deposits from air pollution. Mercury pollution of rivers and 
streams contaminates the fish we eat and poses a serious threat to 
children and pregnant women.
  This bill is a clean air and a climate change bill. I hope our 
committee, as we take advantage of this resurgence of interest in the 
quality of air and our health and what we need to do about it, we won't 
just do part of the job. I would like to look at the whole picture. 
What we do in this bill is take the standards that the EPA has created 
for nitrogen and sulfur and put them into law. We make them a little 
stricter, but basically we put them into law. We take the mercury rule 
of the EPA, and we put it into law. We make it even stricter. The EPA 
says get rid of 70 percent of it. We say get rid of 90 percent. Then 
for the first time we put into law carbon caps on electric powerplants 
which produce 40 percent of all the carbon produced in the United 
States and are the fastest growing sector producing carbon in America.
  I hope my colleagues will carefully consider this sector-by-sector 
approach to climate change. Carbon caps might be the best way--I 
believe they are--for dealing with electric powerplants. When it comes 
to fuel, there may be another strategy that makes sense. We could deal 
with that sector in a different way. For example, when we were dealing 
with sulfur, we didn't put a cap and trade on diesel fuel. We did on 
powerplants. But when we got to diesel fuel, we just said that you have 
to have ultra low sulfur diesel for big trucks, which just now went 
into effect.
  There is also the large segment of building energy use. If we took 
the sector of building energy use, the fuel segment, and the electric 
powerplants, if we added that to a few stationery sources in America 
and developed strategies that were aggressive but practical and cost-
effective for each of those segments, we would be up in the 85 to 90 
percent of all the carbon we produce in America. That makes a lot more 
sense to me than trying to devise some one-size-fits-all system that 
affects every little shop, store, or farm in America. If we can get 
most of it this way, maybe we can learn something so that someday we 
can get the rest of it.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks a section-by-section description of the 
Alexander-Lieberman bill, a one-page summary of the Alexander-Lieberman 
Clean Air/Climate Change Act of 2007, as well as a short memorandum 
which we describe as discussion points and with which I will conclude 
my remarks by going over in just a moment, and a letter from the 
National Parks Conservation Association endorsing the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibits 1 through 4.)
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Senator Lieberman and I don't have all the answers 
with this legislation. I feel much more comfortable with this 
legislation today than I did with any I helped introduce last year or 
the year before because I have learned a lot more. But I will guarantee 
my colleagues that there are several areas in which I would welcome 
advice. Over the last several weeks, I have met with a dozen, two dozen 
environmental groups, utilities, Tennessee citizens, others who had 
suggestions. For example, the discussion points that I have put into 
the record contain five points that are arguable. I have come to a 
tentative conclusion on them. That is in the bill. But there is another 
side to the point. I am looking for advice.
  For example, should we cap only carbon or all greenhouse gases 
emitted from electricity plants? I chose to cap CO2 only. 
That is because this is a four-pollutant bill--sulfur, nitrogen, 
mercury, and carbon. It is not primarily a climate change bill.
  Another consideration is that it seems Europe's experience is that it 
may be better to cap just carbon and

[[Page S4762]]

not all greenhouse gases. That is a question we can debate.
  What should the size of an auction be in terms of the allowances? I 
discussed that earlier. Senator Lieberman and I have chosen 25 percent 
of the total number of allowances. Senator Carper, in his bill, 
eventually goes to 100 percent. There are arguments on both sides.
  What influenced my decision was, I wanted to keep the costs down as 
much as possible. I was afraid that if we used some different kind of 
allowance allocation, we might literally take money away from the 
emitters that they ought to be using to put scrubbers on to reduce 
sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, or carbon and pay it to other utilities.
  What rules should govern the use of offset allowances by electric 
plants? Offsets are an ingenious idea. The idea would be that an 
emitter of carbon might be able to pay somebody else to reduce their 
output of carbon and, therefore, we would end up with the same amount 
of carbon. There are many advantages to that. For example, the 
Tennessee Valley Authority might pay a Tennessee farmer to manage his 
livestock crop in a way as to not produce as much methane, might pay a 
Tennessee farmer to plant a lot of trees. Both of those things would 
reduce greenhouse gases, and the farmer would have more money in his 
pocket. That is a good idea.
  The downside of offsets is that if they are unregulated entirely, it 
seems to me they could become a gimmick or a fad or worse. What we have 
done in this bill is adopt a system of offsets from a consortium of 
States ranging from Maryland to Maine--that includes Senator 
Lieberman's State of Connecticut--and used those model rules on 
offsets. That tends to limit the way offsets may be used. It is a good 
place to at least begin. In other words, a utility might produce more 
carbon, but it might pay someone else who is reducing carbon by using 
biomass or by sequestering carbon in some other way.
  There is a question about how should new coal-fired electric plants 
be treated. There are probably 160 new coal plants on the drawing 
boards. Some of them hope to escape the rules Congress is considering 
about capping the output of carbon. I don't think they should. This 
bill would apply to all coal-fired powerplants, including those on the 
drawing boards. It also would give an incentive to the first 30 of 
those plants to meet a high standard of clean coal technology. We don't 
want to encourage the use of natural gas in this bill. That is the last 
thing we want to do. We don't want to discourage the use of coal. We 
have a lot of coal. It would help make us energy independent. We want 
to encourage the creation of the kind of technology that will permit us 
to use coal in a clean way that either recaptures the carbon and stores 
it or finds some other way to deal with it.
  Finally, what should the CO2 cap levels be? We can debate 
that, and I am sure we will. But the cap level we pick in this 
legislation is to say, let's freeze at the level of last year, starting 
with 2011, and go down step by step into 2025 to 1.5 billion metric 
tons. This is our contribution to the debate.
  We have learned enough about our health, about our ability to attract 
jobs, to know we need to finish the job of cleaning up the air of 
nitrogen, of sulfur, and of mercury; and we need to take the right 
first step to begin to control the emission of carbon to deal with 
global warming. I believe the right first step is a market-based cap 
and trade system of electricity plants which is described here.
  May I also say this: Some people say: Well, let's wait until China 
does it. Let's wait until India does it. The great danger is that we 
will not unleash the technological genius of the United States of 
America to clean our air and to deal efficiently and inexpensively with 
the emissions of carbon. If we do not figure that out, India and China 
are going to build so many dirty coal powerplants that it will not make 
any difference what we do because the wind will blow the dirty air 
around here, and we will suffer and the planet will suffer whatever the 
consequences are of global warming and of the other pollutants that 
come from coal.
  So we have an obligation not just to the world to do this, we have to 
do this for ourselves because 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 new coal-fired 
powerplants in India and China will obliterate any of the good work we 
might do here. I believe if we take the aggressive but practical cost-
effective steps in this Clean Air/Climate Change Act, we will unleash 
the great entrepreneurial spirit of our country. We will be able to 
create an inexpensive way to deal with carbon on a segment-by-segment 
basis, deal with the other pollutants, and India and China will have to 
follow. The rest of the world will follow, and we will be better off.
  I cannot imagine more interesting and exciting work to be doing. This 
is the kind of subject on which we should be working together on a 
bipartisan basis.
  I thank Senator Lieberman for joining me in cosponsoring this 
legislation. I salute Senator Carper for his continued leadership. I 
look forward to working with him.

                               Exhibit 1

 Clean Air/Climate Change Act of 2007, Section by Section Description, 
                             April 19, 2007


                      TITLE I: GENERAL PROVISIONS

     Sec. 101. New Source Performance Standard
       Requires all new coal-fired electricity plants constructed 
     or modified after January 1, 2015, to meet a performance 
     standard of 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) 
     per megawatthour of electricity generated (MWh).
       Between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2020, 5 percent of 
     the total CO2 allowances will be set aside for new 
     coal-fired power plants built after enactment that meet this 
     performance standard.
     Sec. 102. New Source Review Program
       Beginning January 1, 2020, electricity plants that have 
     been operating for 40 years or more have to meet a 
     performance standard of 2 pounds of sulfur dioxide per MWh 
     and 1 pound of nitrogen oxides per MWh.
     Sec. 103. Integrated Air Quality Planning for the Electric 
         Generating Sector
       Cuts sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions in two 
     phases:
       Phase One--codifies Phase One of the Clean Air Interstate 
     Rule (CAIR).
       Phase Two--in 2015, replaces CAIR with a national program, 
     reducing the current SO2 cap of 9.4 million tons 
     to 2.0 million tons per year and establishing eastern and 
     western NOx caps totaling 1.6 million tons per year.
       Requires mercury emissions to be cut by 90 percent in 2015 
     without trading.
       Establishes a Climate Champions Program that authorizes EPA 
     to recognize electricity plants that meet a 1,100 pound of 
     CO2 per MWh.
       Reduces carbon dioxide emissions as follows:
       2011-2014 2.3 billion metric tons of CO2
       2015-2019 2.1 billion metric tons
       2020-2024 1.8 billion metric tons
       2025 and thereafter 1.5 billion metric tons
       Authorizes an auction of 25 percent of the CO2 
     allowances to be used to mitigate increased electricity 
     costs, if any, of consumers and energy-intensive industries.
     Sec. 104. Revisions to Sulfur Dioxide Allowance Program
       Updates the allowance allocation formulas of the Title IV 
     SO2 program to meet the 2015 cap of 2.0 million 
     tons per year and to include allowances for electricity 
     plants built from 1990 to 2006.
     Sec. 105. Air Quality Forecasts and Warnings
       Requires the Administrator of the National Oceanic and 
     Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), in cooperation with the 
     EPA Administrator, to issue air quality forecasts and 
     warnings.
     Sec. 106. Relationship to Other Law
       Requires the EPA Administrator within 2 years to promulgate 
     regulations for the underground injection of CO2 
     in a manner that protects human health and the environment.


                    TITLE II: GREENHOUSE GAS OFFSETS

     Sec. 201. Greenhouse Gas Offsets
       Establishes standards for offset allowances in six 
     categories: landfill methane capture and destruction; sulfur 
     hexafluoride reductions; sequestration of carbon due to 
     afforestation or reforestation; reduction and avoidance of 
     carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas, oil, and propane 
     end-use combustion due to end-use energy efficiency; avoided 
     methane emissions from agricultural manure management 
     operations; and eligible biomass.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2


        Alexander-Lieberman Clean Air/Climate Change Act of 2007

                       Why legislation is needed

       To improve public health and reduce the threat of global 
     warming, Congress must enact electricity sector legislation 
     that puts stricter standards on sulfur and nitrogen 
     pollution, cuts mercury emissions by 90 percent, and places 
     the first caps on carbon emissions.
       The Environmental Protection Agency's new rules to limit 
     sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury don't go far enough, fast 
     enough.
       Under current law, too many communities live with air that 
     is unhealthy to breathe, and mercury continues to pollute our 
     rivers and streams.
       The Clean Air/Climate Change Act sets aggressive, but 
     practical and achievable limits

[[Page S4763]]

     for reducing four pollutants in order to preserve our jobs 
     while we clean the air and preserve our planet.

             Why the bill focuses on the electricity sector

       Electricity plants are the logical place to start because:
       They produce 40% of the CO2 in our country, at a 
     rate almost twice as fast as any other large segment of the 
     economy.
       We have 15 years' experience with a market-based cap and 
     trade program to reduce sulfur emissions.

                 How Clean Air/Climate Change Act works

       The Clean Air/Climate Change Act of 2007 provides an 
     aggressive--yet achievable--schedule for power plants to 
     reduce emissions and alleviate some of our worst air-related 
     health and environmental problems, such as ozone, acid rain, 
     mercury contamination, and global warming.
       Specifically, the Clean Air/Climate Change Act would:
       Cut sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions by 82 percent 
     by 2015. This acid rain-causing pollution would be cut from 
     today's 11 million tons to a cap of 2 million tons in 2015.
       Cut emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 68 
     percent by 2015. Ozone pollution would be cut from today's 5 
     million tons to a cap of 1.6 million tons in 2015.
       Cut mercury emissions at each power plant by 90 percent in 
     2015. This is a stringent, yet achievable goal that would 
     greatly reduce the risks this neurotoxin poses to children 
     and pregnant women.
       Implement a cap, trade, and offsets program to reduce 
     CO2 emissions. CO2 emissions would be 
     capped at 2.3 billion metric tons in 2011, 2.1 billion metric 
     tons in 2015, 1.8 billion metric tons in 2020, and 1.5 
     billion metric tons in 2025 and beyond.

                          Innovative features

       In order to encourage prompt, deep yet cost-effective 
     CO2 reductions, the Clean Air/Climate Change Act 
     contains several innovative features, including:
       Climate Champions Program. Establishes a reserve of 5% of 
     all CO2 allowances as an incentive for new coal-
     fired electricity plants that meet a performance standard of 
     1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatthour between 2011 
     and 2020. (This performance standard is comparable to an IGCC 
     coal plant with 60% CO2 capture and storage.)
       Minimizes costs. Auctions 25% of the CO2 
     allowances and authorizes the proceeds to be used to mitigate 
     increased electricity costs (if any) to consumers and energy-
     intensive industry.
       Discourages fuel switching from coal to natural gas. The 
     use of natural gas to generate electricity can create 
     volatility in electricity prices for consumers.
       Flexible compliance. Permits the use of offsets so that 
     companies may meet their carbon emissions reduction flexibly 
     and cost-effectively.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 3

        Clean Air/Climate Change Act of 2007, Discussion Points


            Issues that Sen. Alexander would like to discuss

       1. Should Congress cap only CO2 or all 
     greenhouse gases emitted from electricity plants?
       2. What size should an auction be?
       3. What rules should govern the use of offset allowances 
     electricity plants?
       4. How should new coal-fired electricity plants be treated?
       5. What should CO2 cap levels be?
                                  ____

     1. Should Congress cap only CO2 or all greenhouse 
         gases emitted from electricity plants
       Clean Air/Climate Change Oct
       Caps CO2 only.
       Discussion
       In his bill, Sen. Alexander chose to cap CO2 
     only. In part, that decision is a result of the Clean Air/
     Climate Change Act being a bill that limits the four major 
     pollutants emitted from electricity plants: sulfur dioxide, 
     nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide. It is not 
     primarily a climate change bill.
       Another consideration is the experience gained from Phase 
     One of the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (EU 
     ETS), the largest cap and trade program in the world. The EU 
     ETS capped only CO2 in its first phase. Phase Two 
     of that program, which starts in 2008, will cap six 
     greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides, 
     perflourocarbons hydrofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexaflouride
       The U.K. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee in 
     its Fourth Report (dated March 27, 2005) recommended that 
     Phase Two not be expanded to include gases other than carbon 
     dioxide.
       Instead, the House of Commons Committee recommended minimal 
     significant changes to the shape and scope of the trading 
     program.
       The House of Commons Committee also recommended non-carbon 
     greenhouse gases be addressed through regulation and not 
     through trading.
       What is the best approach?
     2. What size should an auction be
       Clean Air/Climate Change Act
       Auctions 25 percent of CO2 allowances.
       Uses the proceeds to offset increased electricity costs (if 
     any) of consumers and energy-intensive industries.
       Discussion
       The total value of the CO2 allowances will be 
     much higher than the total value of SO2 allowances 
     because there will be about 1,000 times more CO2 
     allowances than SO2 allowances. Because 
     CO2 allowances will be so much more valuable, 
     economists recommend that there be an auction.
       In its 2004 report, the National Commission on Energy 
     Policy (NCEP) recommended that 10 percent of allowances be 
     auctioned. However, in March 2007 NCEP changed its 
     recommendation on allocation. NCEP now recommends that 50 
     percent of allowances be auctioned.
       Similarly, a March 2007 NCEP paper states that businesses 
     and consumers at the end of the energy supply chain--not oil, 
     natural gas, and electric utilities--bear the largest share 
     of the costs of a greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade 
     program.
       Auctioning 25 percent of the CO2 allowances for 
     the power sector would generate revenues sufficient to 
     protect consumers from higher electricity rates.
       The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) model rule 
     recommends that 25 percent of CO2 allowances be 
     auctioned.
     3. What rules should govern the use of offset allowances by 
         electricity plants?
       Clean Air/Climate Change Act
       Includes the RGGI model rules on offsets.
       Offset types: landfill methane capture and destruction; 
     sulfur hexafluoride reductions; sequestration of carbon 
     through afforestation or reforestation; reduction and 
     avoidance of carbon dioxide emissions from natural gas, oil, 
     and propane end-use combustion due to end-use energy 
     efficiency; avoided methane emissions from agricultural 
     management operations; and eligible biomass.
       Discussion
       Allowing electricity plants to meet their CO2 
     reductions through offsets provides compliance flexibility 
     that greatly reduces costs to consumers and industry.
       Offsets must be real reductions, however, and not gimmicks.
       RGGI's model rules on offsets were adopted in an extensive, 
     multi-state stakeholder process.
       Sen. Alexander is seeking additional measures to include in 
     a four pollutant law that will prevent fuel switching to 
     natural gas, as the use of natural gas to generate 
     electricity can create volatility in electricity prices for 
     consumers.
     4. How should new coal-fired electricity plants be treated
       Clean Air/Climate Change Act
       New fossil fuel electricity plants coming on line after 
     January 1, 2007 will be required to purchase 100 percent of 
     their required allowances.
       Between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2020, 5 percent of 
     the total CO2 allowances will be set aside as an 
     incentive for new coal-fired power plants that meet a 
     performance standard of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per 
     megawatt hour.
       In 2015, all new coal-fired electricity plants must meet 
     this performance standard.
       Discussion
       Electricity sector climate legislation should actively 
     discourage the construction of new conventional fossil fuel 
     power plant and encourage technologies that allow for the 
     capture and sequestration of CO2.
       A performance standard of 1,100 pounds of CO2 
     per MWh (the same standard used in California for electricity 
     purchases from out-of-state coal-fired power plants) will 
     ensure that new coal-fired power plants capture at least 60 
     percent of their CO2.
       Denying CO2 allowances to plants that fail to 
     meet this standard is a powerful disincentive to building 
     conventional coal plants that lack lack carbon capture 
     technology.
       Otherwise, new conventional coal plants will lock in high 
     CO2 emissions for years.
       Inclusion of natural gas-fired plants in this program is 
     important to avoid creating an incentive to shift more 
     generation to natural gas.
     What should CO2 cap levels be
       Clean Air/Climate Chance Act
       The power sector CO2 cap should decline over 
     time on the following schedule: 2011-2014, 2.3 billion metric 
     tons; 2015-2019, 2.1 million metric tons; 2020-2024, 1.8 
     billion metric tons; and 2025 and beyond; 1.5 billion metric 
     tons.
       Discussion
       This an aggressive yet achievable cap that starts with 
     limiting electricity sector CO2 to the level 
     emitted in 2006 and then declines in a step wise manner out 
     to 2025.
       An electricity sector CO2 cap on 1.5 billion 
     metric tons is roughly equivalent to the electricity sector 
     cap in the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and 
     Innovation Act.
       Electricity plants emit 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide. 
     Emissions from this major sector source of carbon dioxide 
     need to be reduced now in order to preserve the option of 
     stabilizing atmospheric concentrations at 450 parts per 
     million, the level that scientists believe will most likely 
     prevent some of the worst global warming impacts being 
     projected.
       Delaying emissions reductions will make the job more 
     challenging and expensive down the road.

[[Page S4764]]

     
                                  ____
                               Exhibit 4

                                                    National Parks


                                     Conservation Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 18, 2007.
     Hon. Lamar Alexander,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Alexander: On behalf of the National Parks 
     Conservation Association, we strongly commend you for 
     introducing the Clean Air/Climate Change Act of 2007, a bill 
     designed to provide healthier air to millions of Americans, 
     help restore clear skies to our national parks, and take 
     important steps toward addressing global warming.
       As I know you are well aware, coal-fired power plants are a 
     leading source of the pollutants that cause asthma attacks 
     and respiratory disease in humans, habitat damage and hazy 
     skies in our parks, and mercury-laden fish in our rivers and 
     lakes. They are also the main industrial source of the 
     pollution that causes global warming. Technologies are 
     readily available that can allow these plants to operate much 
     more cleanly. The Clean Air/Climate Change Act would employ 
     flexible market mechanisms and adequate lead-time so these 
     technologies can be affordably applied at these plants to 
     help restore air quality and diminish the causes of global 
     warming. Starting with the coal-fired power plants, which are 
     the worst offenders, before proceeding to address other 
     polluters makes strategic and economic sense.
       Taken together, the provisions in the Clean Air/Climate 
     Change Act provide a comprehensive and balanced solution to 
     the problem of coal-fired power plant pollution. The National 
     Parks Conservation Association is pleased to support the 
     Clean Air/Climate Change Act of 2007. From all of us, thank 
     you for your strong leadership on this incredibly important 
     subject.
           Sincerely,
                                                Thomas C. Kiernan,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Feingold, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Reed, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Schumer, 
        Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Brown, Mrs. 
        Clinton, and Mr. Leahy):
  S. 1170. A bill to designate as wilderness certain Federal portions 
of the red rock canyons of the Colorado Plateau and the Basin and Range 
Deserts in the State of Utah for the benefit of present and future 
generations of people in the United States; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce America's Red 
Rock Wilderness Act of 2007. This legislation continues our Nation's 
commitment to preserve our natural heritage. Preservation of our 
Nation's vital natural resources will be one of our most important 
legacies.
  America's Red Rock Wilderness Act will designate as wilderness some 
of our Nation's most remarkable, but currently unprotected public 
lands. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in Utah harbor some of the 
largest and most remarkable roadless desert areas anywhere in the 
world. Included in the 9.4 million acres I seek to protect are well 
known landscapes, like the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument, 
as well as lesser known areas just outside Zion National Park, 
Canyonlands National Park, and Arches National Park. Together this wild 
landscape offers spectacular vistas of rare rock formations, canyons 
and desert lands, important archaeological sites, and habitat for rare 
plant and animal species.
  I have visited many of the areas this Act would designate as 
wilderness. I can tell you that the natural beauty of these truly 
unique landscapes is a compelling reason for Congress to grant these 
lands wilderness protection. I have the honor of introducing 
legislation first introduced by my friend and former colleague in the 
House of Representatives, Wayne Owens. As the representative for much 
of Utah's Red Rock country, Representative Owens pioneered the 
Congressional effort to protect Utah wilderness. He did this with broad 
public support, which still exists not only in Utah, but in all corners 
of our Nation.
  The wilderness designated in this bill was chosen based on more than 
twenty years of meticulous research and surveying. Volunteers have 
taken inventories of thousands of square miles of BLM land in Utah to 
help determine which lands should be protected. These volunteers 
provided extensive documentation to ensure that these areas meet 
Federal wilderness criteria. The BLM also completed a reinventory of 
approximately six million acres of Federal land in the same area in 
1999. While only six million acres of the total 9.4 million acres were 
inventoried by the BLM, the results provide a convincing confirmation 
that the areas designated for protection under this bill meet Federal 
wilderness criteria.
  For more than 20 years, Utah conservationists have been working to 
add the last great blocks of undeveloped BLM-administered land in Utah 
to the National Wilderness Preservation System. The lands proposed for 
protection surround and connect eight of Utah's nine national park, 
monument and recreation areas. These proposed BLM wilderness areas 
easily equal their neighboring national parklands in scenic beauty, 
opportunities for recreation, and ecological importance. Yet, unlike 
the parks, most of these scenic treasures lack any form of long-term 
protection.
  Today, the BLM is in the process of making critical decisions about 
the future stewardship and use of nearly six million acres of wild 
lands that my legislation would protect. The BLM will decide which 
areas should be preserved or developed and whether they will be left 
roadless or have roads cut through them. It also will determine if 
these wild lands will be open to off-road vehicles or exploited for 
mineral mining and oil and gas exploration. Any policies put in place 
will stand for 15 to 20 years, a timespan long enough to leave a 
lasting mark on this landscape.
  Americans understand the need for wise and balanced stewardship of 
these wild landscapes. Unfortunately, the Administration has proposed 
little or no serious protections for Utah's most majestic places. 
Instead, the BLM appears to lack a solid conservation ethic and 
routinely favors development and consumptive uses of our wild public 
land. In just the last four years, the BLM has leased for oil and gas 
development over 125,000 acres of land that would have been designated 
for wilderness in America's Red Rock Wilderness Act.
  This legislation represents a realistic balance between our need to 
protect our natural heritage and our demand for energy. While 
wilderness designation has been portrayed as a barrier to energy 
independence, it is important to note that within the entire 9.4 
million acres of America's Red Rock Wilderness Act the amount of 
``technically recoverable'' undiscovered natural gas and oil resources 
amounts to less than four days of oil and four weeks of natural gas at 
current consumption levels.
  America's Red Rock Wilderness Act is a lasting gift to the American 
public. By protecting this serene yet wild land we are giving future 
generations the opportunity to enjoy the same untrammeled landscape 
that so many now cherish.
  I'd like to thank my colleagues who are original cosponsors of this 
measure, many of whom have supported the bill since it was first 
introduced. Original cosponsors are Senators Kerry, Feingold, Cantwell, 
Menendez, Cardin, Reed, Harkin, Kennedy, Bayh, Lieberman, Stabenow, 
Schumer, Lautenberg, Boxer, Whitehouse, Brown and Clinton. 
Additionally, I would like to thank The Utah Wilderness Coalition, 
which includes The Wilderness Society and Sierra Club; The Southern 
Utah Wilderness Alliance; and all of the other national, regional and 
local, hard-working groups who, for years, have championed this 
legislation.
  Theodore Roosevelt once stated:
  ``The Nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as 
assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not 
impaired in value.''
  Enactment of this legislation will help us realize Roosevelt's 
vision. To protect these precious resources in Utah for future 
generations, I urge my colleagues to support America's Red Rock 
Wilderness Act.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1170

       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 ``America's 
     Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:


[[Page S4765]]


Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.

                TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS

Sec. 101. Great Basin Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 102. Zion and Mojave Desert Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 103. Grand Staircase-Escalante Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 104. Moab-La Sal Canyons Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 105. Henry Mountains Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 106. Glen Canyon Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 107. San Juan-Anasazi Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 108. Canyonlands Basin Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 109. San Rafael Swell Wilderness Areas.
Sec. 110. Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin Wilderness Areas.

                  TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. General provisions.
Sec. 202. Administration.
Sec. 203. State school trust land within wilderness areas.
Sec. 204. Water.
Sec. 205. Roads.
Sec. 206. Livestock.
Sec. 207. Fish and wildlife.
Sec. 208. Management of newly acquired land.
Sec. 209. Withdrawal.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land 
     Management.
       (2) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Utah.

                TITLE I--DESIGNATION OF WILDERNESS AREAS

     SEC. 101. GREAT BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Great Basin region of western Utah is comprised of 
     starkly beautiful mountain ranges that rise as islands from 
     the desert floor;
       (2) the Wah Wah Mountains in the Great Basin region are 
     arid and austere, with massive cliff faces and leathery 
     slopes speckled with pinon and juniper;
       (3) the Pilot Range and Stansbury Mountains in the Great 
     Basin region are high enough to draw moisture from passing 
     clouds and support ecosystems found nowhere else on earth;
       (4) from bristlecone pine, the world's oldest living 
     organism, to newly-flowered mountain meadows, mountains of 
     the Great Basin region are islands of nature that--
       (A) support remarkable biological diversity; and
       (B) provide opportunities to experience the colossal 
     silence of the Great Basin; and
       (5) the Great Basin region of western Utah should be 
     protected and managed to ensure the preservation of the 
     natural conditions of the region.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Antelope Range (approximately 17,000 acres).
       (2) Barn Hills (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (3) Black Hills (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (4) Bullgrass Knoll (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (5) Burbank Hills/Tunnel Spring (approximately 92,000 
     acres).
       (6) Conger Mountains (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (7) Crater Bench (approximately 35,000 acres).
       (8) Crater and Silver Island Mountains (approximately 
     121,000 acres).
       (9) Cricket Mountains Cluster (approximately 62,000 acres).
       (10) Deep Creek Mountains (approximately 126,000 acres).
       (11) Drum Mountains (approximately 39,000 acres).
       (12) Dugway Mountains (approximately 24,000 acres).
       (13) Essex Canyon (approximately 1,300 acres).
       (14) Fish Springs Range (approximately 64,000 acres).
       (15) Granite Peak (approximately 19,000 acres).
       (16) Grassy Mountains (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (17) Grouse Creek Mountains (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (18) House Range (approximately 201,000 acres).
       (19) Keg Mountains (approximately 38,000 acres).
       (20) Kern Mountains (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (21) King Top (approximately 110,000 acres).
       (22) Ledger Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (23) Little Goose Creek (approximately 1,200 acres).
       (24) Middle/Granite Mountains (approximately 80,000 acres).
       (25) Mountain Home Range (approximately 90,000 acres).
       (26) Newfoundland Mountains (approximately 22,000 acres).
       (27) Ochre Mountain (approximately 13,000 acres).
       (28) Oquirrh Mountains (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (29) Painted Rock Mountain (approximately 26,000 acres).
       (30) Paradise/Steamboat Mountains (approximately 144,000 
     acres).
       (31) Pilot Range (approximately 45,000 acres).
       (32) Red Tops (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (33) Rockwell-Little Sahara (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (34) San Francisco Mountains (approximately 39,000 acres).
       (35) Sand Ridge (approximately 73,000 acres).
       (36) Simpson Mountains (approximately 42,000 acres).
       (37) Snake Valley (approximately 100,000 acres).
       (38) Stansbury Island (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (39) Stansbury Mountains (approximately 24,000 acres).
       (40) Thomas Range (approximately 36,000 acres).
       (41) Tule Valley (approximately 159,000 acres).
       (42) Wah Wah Mountains (approximately 167,000 acres).
       (43) Wasatch/Sevier Plateaus (approximately 29,000 acres).
       (44) White Rock Range (approximately 5,200 acres).

     SEC. 102. ZION AND MOJAVE DESERT WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the renowned landscape of Zion National Park, including 
     soaring cliff walls, forested plateaus, and deep narrow 
     gorges, extends beyond the boundaries of the Park onto 
     surrounding public land managed by the Secretary;
       (2) from the pink sand dunes of Moquith Mountain to the 
     golden pools of Beaver Dam Wash, the Zion and Mojave Desert 
     areas encompass 3 major provinces of the Southwest that 
     include--
       (A) the sculpted canyon country of the Colorado Plateau;
       (B) the Mojave Desert; and
       (C) portions of the Great Basin;
       (3) the Zion and Mojave Desert areas display a rich mosaic 
     of biological, archaeological, and scenic diversity;
       (4) 1 of the last remaining populations of threatened 
     desert tortoise is found within this region; and
       (5) the Zion and Mojave Desert areas in Utah should be 
     protected and managed as wilderness areas.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Beaver Dam Mountains (approximately 30,000 acres).
       (2) Beaver Dam Wash (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (3) Beaver Dam Wilderness Expansion (approximately 8,000 
     acres).
       (4) Canaan Mountain (approximately 67,000 acres).
       (5) Cottonwood Canyon (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (6) Cougar Canyon/Docs Pass (approximately 41,000 acres).
       (7) Joshua Tree (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (8) Mount Escalante (approximately 17,000 acres).
       (9) Parunuweap Canyon (approximately 43,000 acres).
       (10) Red Butte (approximately 4,500 acres).
       (11) Red Mountain (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (12) Scarecrow Peak (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (13) Square Top Mountain (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (14) Zion Adjacent (approximately 58,000 acres).

     SEC. 103. GRAND STAIRCASE-ESCALANTE WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Grand Staircase Area.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the area known as the Grand Staircase rises more than 
     6,000 feet in a series of great cliffs and plateaus from the 
     depths of the Grand Canyon to the forested rim of Bryce 
     Canyon;
       (B) the Grand Staircase--
       (i) spans 6 major life zones, from the lower Sonoran Desert 
     to the alpine forest; and
       (ii) encompasses geologic formations that display 
     3,000,000,000 years of Earth's history;
       (C) land managed by the Secretary lines the intricate 
     canyon system of the Paria River and forms a vital natural 
     corridor connection to the deserts and forests of those 
     national parks;
       (D) land described in paragraph (2) (other than East of 
     Bryce, Upper Kanab Creek, Moquith Mountain, Bunting Point, 
     and Vermillion Cliffs) is located within the Grand Staircase-
     Escalante National Monument; and
       (E) the Grand Staircase in Utah should be protected and 
     managed as a wilderness area.
       (2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (A) Bryce View (approximately 4,500 acres).
       (B) Bunting Point (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (C) Canaan Peak Slopes (approximately 2,300 acres).
       (D) East of Bryce (approximately 750 acres).
       (E) Glass Eye Canyon (approximately 24,000 acres).
       (F) Ladder Canyon (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (G) Moquith Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (H) Nephi Point (approximately 14,000 acres).

[[Page S4766]]

       (I) Paria-Hackberry (approximately 188,000 acres).
       (J) Paria Wilderness Expansion (approximately 3,300 acres).
       (K) Pine Hollow (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (L) Slopes of Bryce (approximately 2,600 acres).
       (M) Timber Mountain (approximately 51,000 acres).
       (N) Upper Kanab Creek (approximately 49,000 acres).
       (O) Vermillion Cliffs (approximately 26,000 acres).
       (P) Willis Creek (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (b) Kaiparowits Plateau.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) the Kaiparowits Plateau east of the Paria River is 1 of 
     the most rugged and isolated wilderness regions in the United 
     States;
       (B) the Kaiparowits Plateau, a windswept land of harsh 
     beauty, contains distant vistas and a remarkable variety of 
     plant and animal species;
       (C) ancient forests, an abundance of big game animals, and 
     22 species of raptors thrive undisturbed on the grassland 
     mesa tops of the Kaiparowits Plateau;
       (D) each of the areas described in paragraph (2) (other 
     than Heaps Canyon, Little Valley, and Wide Hollow) is located 
     within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; and
       (E) the Kaiparowits Plateau should be protected and managed 
     as a wilderness area.
       (2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (A) Andalex Not (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (B) The Blues (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (C) Box Canyon (approximately 2,800 acres).
       (D) Burning Hills (approximately 80,000 acres).
       (E) Carcass Canyon (approximately 83,000 acres).
       (F) The Cockscomb (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (G) Fiftymile Bench (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (H) Fiftymile Mountain (approximately 203,000 acres).
       (I) Heaps Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
       (J) Horse Spring Canyon (approximately 31,000 acres).
       (K) Kodachrome Headlands (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (L) Little Valley Canyon (approximately 4,000 acres).
       (M) Mud Spring Canyon (approximately 65,000 acres).
       (N) Nipple Bench (approximately 32,000 acres).
       (O) Paradise Canyon-Wahweap (approximately 262,000 acres).
       (P) Rock Cove (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (Q) Warm Creek (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (R) Wide Hollow (approximately 6,800 acres).
       (c) Escalante Canyons.--
       (1) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (A) glens and coves carved in massive sandstone cliffs, 
     spring-watered hanging gardens, and the silence of ancient 
     Anasazi ruins are examples of the unique features that entice 
     hikers, campers, and sightseers from around the world to 
     Escalante Canyon;
       (B) Escalante Canyon links the spruce fir forests of the 
     11,000-foot Aquarius Plateau with winding slickrock canyons 
     that flow into Glen Canyon;
       (C) Escalante Canyon, 1 of Utah's most popular natural 
     areas, contains critical habitat for deer, elk, and wild 
     bighorn sheep that also enhances the scenic integrity of the 
     area;
       (D) each of the areas described in paragraph (2) is located 
     within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; and
       (E) Escalante Canyon should be protected and managed as a 
     wilderness area.
       (2) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (A) Brinkerhof Flats (approximately 3,000 acres).
       (B) Colt Mesa (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (C) Death Hollow (approximately 49,000 acres).
       (D) Forty Mile Gulch (approximately 6,600 acres).
       (E) Hurricane Wash (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (F) Lampstand (approximately 7,900 acres).
       (G) Muley Twist Flank (approximately 3,600 acres).
       (H) North Escalante Canyons (approximately 176,000 acres).
       (I) Pioneer Mesa (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (J) Scorpion (approximately 53,000 acres).
       (K) Sooner Bench (approximately 390 acres).
       (L) Steep Creek (approximately 35,000 acres).
       (M) Studhorse Peaks (approximately 24,000 acres).

     SEC. 104. MOAB-LA SAL CANYONS WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the canyons surrounding the La Sal Mountains and the 
     town of Moab offer a variety of extraordinary landscapes;
       (2) outstanding examples of natural formations and 
     landscapes in the Moab-La Sal area include the huge sandstone 
     fins of Behind the Rocks, the mysterious Fisher Towers, and 
     the whitewater rapids of Westwater Canyon; and
       (3) the Moab-La Sal area should be protected and managed as 
     a wilderness area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Arches Adjacent (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (2) Beaver Creek (approximately 41,000 acres).
       (3) Behind the Rocks and Hunters Canyon (approximately 
     22,000 acres).
       (4) Big Triangle (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (5) Coyote Wash (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (6) Dome Plateau-Professor Valley (approximately 35,000 
     acres).
       (7) Fisher Towers (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (8) Goldbar Canyon (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (9) Granite Creek (approximately 5,000 acres).
       (10) Mary Jane Canyon (approximately 25,000 acres).
       (11) Mill Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (12) Porcupine Rim and Morning Glory (approximately 20,000 
     acres).
       (13) Renegade Point (approximately 6,600 acres).
       (14) Westwater Canyon (approximately 37,000 acres).
       (15) Yellow Bird (approximately 4,200 acres).

     SEC. 105. HENRY MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Henry Mountain Range, the last mountain range to be 
     discovered and named by early explorers in the contiguous 
     United States, still retains a wild and undiscovered quality;
       (2) fluted badlands that surround the flanks of 11,000-foot 
     Mounts Ellen and Pennell contain areas of critical habitat 
     for mule deer and for the largest herd of free-roaming 
     buffalo in the United States;
       (3) despite their relative accessibility, the Henry 
     Mountain Range remains 1 of the wildest, least-known ranges 
     in the United States; and
       (4) the Henry Mountain range should be protected and 
     managed to ensure the preservation of the range as a 
     wilderness area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (1) Bull Mountain (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (2) Bullfrog Creek (approximately 35,000 acres).
       (3) Dogwater Creek (approximately 3,400 acres).
       (4) Fremont Gorge (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (5) Long Canyon (approximately 16,000 acres).
       (6) Mount Ellen-Blue Hills (approximately 140,000 acres).
       (7) Mount Hillers (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (8) Mount Pennell (approximately 147,000 acres).
       (9) Notom Bench (approximately 6,200 acres).
       (10) Oak Creek (approximately 1,700 acres).
       (11) Ragged Mountain (approximately 28,000 acres).

     SEC. 106. GLEN CANYON WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the side canyons of Glen Canyon, including the Dirty 
     Devil River and the Red, White and Blue Canyons, contain some 
     of the most remote and outstanding landscapes in southern 
     Utah;
       (2) the Dirty Devil River, once the fortress hideout of 
     outlaw Butch Cassidy's Wild Bunch, has sculpted a maze of 
     slickrock canyons through an imposing landscape of monoliths 
     and inaccessible mesas;
       (3) the Red and Blue Canyons contain colorful Chinle/
     Moenkopi badlands found nowhere else in the region; and
       (4) the canyons of Glen Canyon in the State should be 
     protected and managed as wilderness areas.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Cane Spring Desert (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (2) Dark Canyon (approximately 134,000 acres).
       (3) Dirty Devil (approximately 242,000 acres).
       (4) Fiddler Butte (approximately 92,000 acres).
       (5) Flat Tops (approximately 30,000 acres).
       (6) Little Rockies (approximately 64,000 acres).
       (7) The Needle (approximately 11,000 acres).
       (8) Red Rock Plateau (approximately 213,000 acres).
       (9) White Canyon (approximately 98,000 acres).

     SEC. 107. SAN JUAN-ANASAZI WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--

[[Page S4767]]

       (1) more than 1,000 years ago, the Anasazi Indian culture 
     flourished in the slickrock canyons and on the pinon-covered 
     mesas of southeastern Utah;
       (2) evidence of the ancient presence of the Anasazi 
     pervades the Cedar Mesa area of the San Juan-Anasazi area 
     where cliff dwellings, rock art, and ceremonial kivas 
     embellish sandstone overhangs and isolated benchlands;
       (3) the Cedar Mesa area is in need of protection from the 
     vandalism and theft of its unique cultural resources;
       (4) the Cedar Mesa wilderness areas should be created to 
     protect both the archaeological heritage and the 
     extraordinary wilderness, scenic, and ecological values of 
     the United States; and
       (5) the San Juan-Anasazi area should be protected and 
     managed as a wilderness area to ensure the preservation of 
     the unique and valuable resources of that area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Allen Canyon (approximately 5,900 acres).
       (2) Arch Canyon (approximately 30,000 acres).
       (3) Comb Ridge (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (4) East Montezuma (approximately 45,000 acres).
       (5) Fish and Owl Creek Canyons (approximately 73,000 
     acres).
       (6) Grand Gulch (approximately 159,000 acres).
       (7) Hammond Canyon (approximately 4,400 acres).
       (8) Nokai Dome (approximately 93,000 acres).
       (9) Road Canyon (approximately 63,000 acres).
       (10) San Juan River (Sugarloaf) (approximately 15,000 
     acres).
       (11) The Tabernacle (approximately 7,000 acres).
       (12) Valley of the Gods (approximately 21,000 acres).

     SEC. 108. CANYONLANDS BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) Canyonlands National Park safeguards only a small 
     portion of the extraordinary red-hued, cliff-walled 
     canyonland region of the Colorado Plateau;
       (2) areas near Arches National Park and Canyonlands 
     National Park contain canyons with rushing perennial streams, 
     natural arches, bridges, and towers;
       (3) the gorges of the Green and Colorado Rivers lie on 
     adjacent land managed by the Secretary;
       (4) popular overlooks in Canyonlands Nations Park and Dead 
     Horse Point State Park have views directly into adjacent 
     areas, including Lockhart Basin and Indian Creek; and
       (5) designation of those areas as wilderness would ensure 
     the protection of this erosional masterpiece of nature and of 
     the rich pockets of wildlife found within its expanded 
     boundaries.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Bridger Jack Mesa (approximately 33,000 acres).
       (2) Butler Wash (approximately 27,000 acres).
       (3) Dead Horse Cliffs (approximately 5,300 acres).
       (4) Demon's Playground (approximately 3,700 acres).
       (5) Duma Point (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (6) Gooseneck (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (7) Hatch Point Canyons/Lockhart Basin (approximately 
     149,000 acres).
       (8) Horsethief Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (9) Indian Creek (approximately 28,000 acres).
       (10) Labyrinth Canyon (approximately 150,000 acres).
       (11) San Rafael River (approximately 101,000 acres).
       (12) Shay Mountain (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (13) Sweetwater Reef (approximately 69,000 acres).
       (14) Upper Horseshoe Canyon (approximately 60,000 acres).

     SEC. 109. SAN RAFAEL SWELL WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the San Rafael Swell towers above the desert like a 
     castle, ringed by 1,000-foot ramparts of Navajo Sandstone;
       (2) the highlands of the San Rafael Swell have been 
     fractured by uplift and rendered hollow by erosion over 
     countless millennia, leaving a tremendous basin punctuated by 
     mesas, buttes, and canyons and traversed by sediment-laden 
     desert streams;
       (3) among other places, the San Rafael wilderness offers 
     exceptional back country opportunities in the colorful Wild 
     Horse Badlands, the monoliths of North Caineville Mesa, the 
     rock towers of Cliff Wash, and colorful cliffs of Humbug 
     Canyon;
       (4) the mountains within these areas are among Utah's most 
     valuable habitat for desert bighorn sheep; and
       (5) the San Rafael Swell area should be protected and 
     managed to ensure its preservation as a wilderness area.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System:
       (1) Cedar Mountain (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (2) Devils Canyon (approximately 23,000 acres).
       (3) Eagle Canyon (approximately 38,000 acres).
       (4) Factory Butte (approximately 22,000 acres).
       (5) Hondu Country (approximately 20,000 acres).
       (6) Jones Bench (approximately 2,800 acres).
       (7) Limestone Cliffs (approximately 25,000 acres).
       (8) Lost Spring Wash (approximately 37,000 acres).
       (9) Mexican Mountain (approximately 100,000 acres).
       (10) Molen Reef (approximately 33,000 acres).
       (11) Muddy Creek (approximately 240,000 acres).
       (12) Mussentuchit Badlands (approximately 25,000 acres).
       (13) Pleasant Creek Bench (approximately 1,100 acres).
       (14) Price River-Humbug (approximately 120,000 acres).
       (15) Red Desert (approximately 40,000 acres).
       (16) Rock Canyon (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (17) San Rafael Knob (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (18) San Rafael Reef (approximately 114,000 acres).
       (19) Sids Mountain (approximately 107,000 acres).
       (20) Upper Muddy Creek (approximately 19,000 acres).
       (21) Wild Horse Mesa (approximately 92,000 acres).

     SEC. 110. BOOK CLIFFS AND UINTA BASIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin wilderness areas 
     offer--
       (A) unique big game hunting opportunities in verdant high-
     plateau forests;
       (B) the opportunity for float trips of several days 
     duration down the Green River in Desolation Canyon; and
       (C) the opportunity for calm water canoe weekends on the 
     White River;
       (2) the long rampart of the Book Cliffs bounds the area on 
     the south, while seldom-visited uplands, dissected by the 
     rivers and streams, slope away to the north into the Uinta 
     Basin;
       (3) bears, Bighorn sheep, cougars, elk, and mule deer 
     flourish in the back country of the Book Cliffs; and
       (4) the Book Cliffs and Uinta Basin areas should be 
     protected and managed to ensure the protection of the areas 
     as wilderness.
       (b) Designation.--In accordance with the Wilderness Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), the following areas in the State are 
     designated as wilderness areas and as components of the 
     National Wilderness Preservation System.
       (1) Bourdette Draw (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (2) Bull Canyon (approximately 2,800 acres).
       (3) Chipeta (approximately 95,000 acres).
       (4) Dead Horse Pass (approximately 8,000 acres).
       (5) Desbrough Canyon (approximately 13,000 acres).
       (6) Desolation Canyon (approximately 557,000 acres).
       (7) Diamond Breaks (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (8) Diamond Canyon (approximately 166,000 acres).
       (9) Diamond Mountain (also known as ``Wild Mountain'') 
     (approximately 27,000 acres).
       (10) Dinosaur Adjacent (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (11) Goslin Mountain (approximately 4,900 acres).
       (12) Hideout Canyon (approximately 12,000 acres).
       (13) Lower Bitter Creek (approximately 14,000 acres).
       (14) Lower Flaming Gorge (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (15) Mexico Point (approximately 15,000 acres).
       (16) Moonshine Draw (also known as ``Daniels Canyon'') 
     (approximately 10,000 acres).
       (17) Mountain Home (approximately 9,000 acres).
       (18) O-Wi-Yu-Kuts (approximately 13,000 acres).
       (19) Red Creek Badlands (approximately 3,600 acres).
       (20) Seep Canyon (approximately 21,000 acres).
       (21) Sunday School Canyon (approximately 18,000 acres).
       (22) Survey Point (approximately 8,000 acres).
       (23) Turtle Canyon (approximately 39,000 acres).
       (24) White River (approximately 24,500 acres).
       (25) Winter Ridge (approximately 38,000 acres).
       (26) Wolf Point (approximately 15,000 acres).

                  TITLE II--ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Names of Wilderness Areas.--Each wilderness area named 
     in title I shall--
       (1) consist of the quantity of land referenced with respect 
     to that named area, as

[[Page S4768]]

     generally depicted on the map entitled ``Utah BLM Wilderness 
     Proposed by S. [___], 110th Congress''; and
       (2) be known by the name given to it in title I.
       (b) Map and Description.--
       (1) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall file a map and a 
     legal description of each wilderness area designated by this 
     Act with--
       (A) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives; and
       (B) the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Force of law.--A map and legal description filed under 
     paragraph (1) shall have the same force and effect as if 
     included in this Act, except that the Secretary may correct 
     clerical and typographical errors in the map and legal 
     description.
       (3) Public availability.--Each map and legal description 
     filed under paragraph (1) shall be filed and made available 
     for public inspection in the Office of the Director of the 
     Bureau of Land Management.

     SEC. 202. ADMINISTRATION.

       Subject to valid rights in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each wilderness area designated under 
     this Act shall be administered by the Secretary in accordance 
     with--
       (1) the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
     U.S.C. 1701 et seq.); and
       (2) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.).

     SEC. 203. STATE SCHOOL TRUST LAND WITHIN WILDERNESS AREAS.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), if State-owned 
     land is included in an area designated by this Act as a 
     wilderness area, the Secretary shall offer to exchange land 
     owned by the United States in the State of approximately 
     equal value in accordance with section 603(c) of the Federal 
     Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1782(c)) 
     and section 5(a) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1134(a)).
       (b) Mineral Interests.--The Secretary shall not transfer 
     any mineral interests under subsection (a) unless the State 
     transfers to the Secretary any mineral interests in land 
     designated by this Act as a wilderness area.

     SEC. 204. WATER.

       (a) Reservation.--
       (1) Water for wilderness areas.--
       (A) In general.--With respect to each wilderness area 
     designated by this Act, Congress reserves a quantity of water 
     determined by the Secretary to be sufficient for the 
     wilderness area.
       (B) Priority date.--The priority date of a right reserved 
     under subparagraph (A) shall be the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (2) Protection of rights.--The Secretary and other officers 
     and employees of the United States shall take any steps 
     necessary to protect the rights reserved by paragraph (1)(A), 
     including the filing of a claim for the quantification of the 
     rights in any present or future appropriate stream 
     adjudication in the courts of the State--
       (A) in which the United States is or may be joined; and
       (B) that is conducted in accordance with section 208 of the 
     Department of Justice Appropriation Act, 1953 (66 Stat. 560, 
     chapter 651).
       (b) Prior Rights Not Affected.--Nothing in this Act 
     relinquishes or reduces any water rights reserved or 
     appropriated by the United States in the State on or before 
     the date of enactment of this Act.
       (c) Administration.--
       (1) Specification of rights.--The Federal water rights 
     reserved by this Act are specific to the wilderness areas 
     designated by this Act.
       (2) No precedent established.--Nothing in this Act related 
     to reserved Federal water rights--
       (A) shall establish a precedent with regard to any future 
     designation of water rights; or
       (B) shall affect the interpretation of any other Act or any 
     designation made under any other Act.

     SEC. 205. ROADS.

       (a) Setbacks.--
       (1) Measurement in general.--A setback under this section 
     shall be measured from the center line of the road.
       (2) Wilderness on 1 side of roads.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), a setback for a road with wilderness on only 
     1 side shall be set at--
       (A) 300 feet from a paved Federal or State highway;
       (B) 100 feet from any other paved road or high standard 
     dirt or gravel road; and
       (C) 30 feet from any other road.
       (3) Wilderness on both sides of roads.--Except as provided 
     in subsection (b), a setback for a road with wilderness on 
     both sides (including cherry-stems or roads separating 2 
     wilderness units) shall be set at--
       (A) 200 feet from a paved Federal or State highway;
       (B) 40 feet from any other paved road or high standard dirt 
     or gravel road; and
       (C) 10 feet from any other roads.
       (b) Setback Exceptions.--
       (1) Well-defined topographical barriers.--If, between the 
     road and the boundary of a setback area described in 
     paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a), there is a well-
     defined cliff edge, stream bank, or other topographical 
     barrier, the Secretary shall use the barrier as the 
     wilderness boundary.
       (2) Fences.--If, between the road and the boundary of a 
     setback area specified in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection 
     (a), there is a fence running parallel to a road, the 
     Secretary shall use the fence as the wilderness boundary if, 
     in the opinion of the Secretary, doing so would result in a 
     more manageable boundary.
       (3) Deviations from setback areas.--
       (A) Exclusion of disturbances from wilderness boundaries.--
     In cases where there is an existing livestock development, 
     dispersed camping area, borrow pit, or similar disturbance 
     within 100 feet of a road that forms part of a wilderness 
     boundary, the Secretary may delineate the boundary so as to 
     exclude the disturbance from the wilderness area.
       (B) Limitation on exclusion of disturbances.--The Secretary 
     shall make a boundary adjustment under subparagraph (A) only 
     if the Secretary determines that doing so is consistent with 
     wilderness management goals.
       (C) Deviations restricted to minimum necessary.--Any 
     deviation under this paragraph from the setbacks required 
     under in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) shall be the 
     minimum necessary to exclude the disturbance.
       (c) Delineation Within Setback Area.--The Secretary may 
     delineate a wilderness boundary at a location within a 
     setback under paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) if, as 
     determined by the Secretary, the delineation would enhance 
     wilderness management goals.

     SEC. 206. LIVESTOCK.

       Within the wilderness areas designated under title I, the 
     grazing of livestock authorized on the date of enactment of 
     this Act shall be permitted to continue subject to such 
     reasonable regulations and procedures as the Secretary 
     considers necessary, as long as the regulations and 
     procedures are consistent with--
       (1) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
       (2) section 101(f) of the Arizona Desert Wilderness Act of 
     1990 (Public Law 101-628; 104 Stat. 4469).

     SEC. 207. FISH AND WILDLIFE.

       Nothing in this Act affects the jurisdiction of the State 
     with respect to wildlife and fish on the public land located 
     in the State.

     SEC. 208. MANAGEMENT OF NEWLY ACQUIRED LAND.

       Any land within the boundaries of a wilderness area 
     designated under this Act that is acquired by the Federal 
     Government shall--
       (1) become part of the wilderness area in which the land is 
     located; and
       (2) be managed in accordance with this Act and other laws 
     applicable to wilderness areas.

     SEC. 209. WITHDRAWAL.

       Subject to valid rights existing on the date of enactment 
     of this Act, the Federal land referred to in title I is 
     withdrawn from all forms of--
       (1) entry, appropriation, or disposal under public law;
       (2) location, entry, and patent under mining law; and
       (3) disposition under all laws pertaining to mineral and 
     geothermal leasing or mineral materials.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased to again join with the 
Senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, as an original cosponsor of 
legislation, America's Red Rocks Wilderness Act of 2007, to designate 
areas of pristine Federal lands in Utah as wilderness.
  I had an opportunity to travel twice to Utah. I viewed firsthand some 
of the lands that would be designated for wilderness under Senator 
Durbin's bill. I was able to view most of the proposed wilderness areas 
from the air, and was able to enhance my understanding through hikes 
outside of the Zion National Park on the Dry Creek Bench wilderness 
unit contained in this proposal and inside the Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument to Upper Calf Creek Falls. I also viewed 
the lands proposed for designation in this bill from a river trip down 
the Colorado River, and in the San Rafael Swell with members of the 
Emery County government.
  I support this legislation, for a few reasons, but most of all 
because I have personally seen what is at stake, and I know the 
marvelous resources that Wisconsinites and all Americans own in the 
Bureau of Land Management, BLM, lands of southern Utah.
  Second, I support this legislation because I believe it sets the 
broadest and boldest mark for the lands that should be protected in 
southern Utah. I believe that when the Senate considers wilderness 
legislation it ought to know, as a benchmark, the full measure of those 
lands which are deserving of wilderness protection. This bill 
encompasses all the BLM lands of wilderness quality in Utah. 
Unfortunately, the Senate has not, as we do today, always had the 
benefit of considering wilderness designations for all of the deserving 
lands in southern Utah. During the 104th Congress, I joined with

[[Page S4769]]

the former Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Bradley, in opposing that 
Congress's omnibus parks legislation. It contained provisions, which 
were eventually removed, that many in my home State of Wisconsin 
believed not only designated as wilderness too little of the Bureau of 
Land Management's holding in Utah deserving of such protection, but 
also substantively changed the protections afforded designated lands 
under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
  The lands of southern Utah are very special to the people of 
Wisconsin. In writing to me over the last few years, my constituents 
have described these lands as places of solitude, special family 
moments, and incredible beauty. In December 1997, Ron Raunikar of the 
Capital Times, a paper in Madison, WI, wrote:

       Other remaining wilderness in the U.S. is at first 
     daunting, but then endearing and always a treasure for all 
     Americans. The sensually sculpted slickrock of the Colorado 
     Plateau and windswept crag lines of the Great Basin include 
     some of the last of our country's wilderness, which is not 
     fully protected. We must ask our elected officials to redress 
     this circumstance, by enacting legislation which would 
     protect those national lands within the boundaries of Utah. 
     This wilderness is a treasure we can lose only once or a 
     legacy we can be forever proud to bestow to our children.

  I believe that the measure being introduced today will accomplish 
that goal. The measure protects wild lands that really are not done 
justice by any description in words. In my trip I found widely varied 
and distinct terrain, remarkable American resources of red rock cliff 
walls, desert, canyons and gorges which encompass the canyon country of 
the Colorado Plateau, the Mojave Desert and portions of the Great 
Basin. The lands also include mountain ranges in western Utah, and 
stark areas like the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. These 
regions appeal to all types of American outdoor interests from hikers 
and sightseers to hunters.
  Phil Haslanger of the Capital Times, answered an important question I 
am often asked when people want to know why a Senator from Wisconsin 
would cosponsor legislation to protect lands in Utah. He wrote on 
September 13, 1995 simply that ``These are not scenes that you could 
see in Wisconsin. That's part of what makes them special.'' He 
continues, and adds what I think is an even more important reason to 
act to protect these lands than the landscape's uniqueness, ``the fight 
over wilderness lands in Utah is a test case of sorts. The anti-
environmental factions in Congress are trying hard to remove 
restrictions on development in some of the nation's most splendid 
areas.''
  Wisconsinites are watching this test case closely. I believe that 
Wisconsinites view the outcome of this fight to save Utah's lands as a 
sign of where the Nation is headed with respect to its stewardship of 
natural resources. What Haslanger's Capital Times comments make clear 
is that while some in Congress may express concern about creating new 
wilderness in Utah, wilderness, as Wisconsinites know, is not created 
by legislation. Legislation to protect existing wilderness ensures that 
future generations may have an experience on public lands equal to that 
which is available today. The action of Congress to preserve wild lands 
by extending the protections of the Wilderness Act of 1964 will 
publicly codify that expectation and promise.
  Finally, this legislation has earned my support, and deserves the 
support of others in this body, because all of the acres that will be 
protected under this bill are already public lands held in trust by the 
Federal Government for the people of the United States. Thus, while 
they are physically located in Utah, their preservation is important to 
the citizens of Wisconsin as it is for other Americans.
  I am eager to work with my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, to 
protect these lands. I commend him for introducing this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici):
  S. 1171. A bill to amend the Colorado River Storage Project Act and 
Public Law 87-483 to authorize the construction and rehabilitation of 
water infrastructure in Northwestern New Mexico, to authorize the use 
of the reclamation fund to fund the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund, 
to authorize the conveyance of certain Reclamation land and 
infrastructure, to authorize the Commissioner of Reclamation to provide 
for the delivery of water, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator 
Domenici, I am pleased today to introduce a bill which attempts to 
promote good stewardship of our limited water supplies in the San Juan 
River basin in New Mexico. The bill is entitled the ``Northwestern New 
Mexico Rural Water Projects Act''. Within its scope are a number of 
provisions relating to and amending Federal statutes that relate to the 
Bureau of Reclamation and the use of water in the Colorado River basin. 
There are also new authorizations for the Bureau of Reclamation. 
Finally, there are provisions that will resolve the Navajo Nation's 
water rights claims in the San Juan River in New Mexico. This bill is 
critical for New Mexico's future. I look forward to working with my 
colleagues in the Senate to see that it gets enacted into law.
  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. 1171

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Compliance with environmental laws.

   TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT ACT AND 
                           PUBLIC LAW 87-483

Sec. 101. Amendments to the Colorado River Storage Project Act.
Sec. 102. Amendments to Public Law 87-483.
Sec. 103. Effect on Federal water law.

              TITLE II--RECLAMATION WATER SETTLEMENTS FUND

Sec. 201. Reclamation Water Settlements Fund.

     TITLE III--NORTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

Sec. 301. Purposes.
Sec. 302. Authorization of Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Supply 
              Project.
Sec. 303. Delivery and use of Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water 
              Supply Project water.
Sec. 304. Project contracts.
Sec. 305. Use of Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline.
Sec. 306. Authorization of conjunctive use wells.
Sec. 307. San Juan River Navajo Irrigation Projects.
Sec. 308. Other irrigation projects.
Sec. 309. Authorization of appropriations.

                  TITLE IV--NAVAJO NATION WATER RIGHTS

Sec. 401. Agreement.
Sec. 402. Trust Fund.
Sec. 403. Waivers and releases.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Acre-feet.--The term ``acre-feet'' means acre-feet per 
     year.
       (2) Agreement.--The term ``Agreement'' means the agreement 
     among the State of New Mexico, the Nation, and the United 
     States setting forth a stipulated and binding agreement 
     signed by the State of New Mexico and the Nation on April 19, 
     2005.
       (3) Animas-la plata project.--The term ``Animas-La Plata 
     Project'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of 
     Public Law 100-585 (102 Stat. 2973), including Ridges Basin 
     Dam, Lake Nighthorse, the Pipeline, and any other features or 
     modifications made pursuant to the Colorado Ute Settlement 
     Act Amendments of 2000 (Public Law 106-554; 114 Stat. 2763A-
     258).
       (4) City.--The term ``City'' means the city of Gallup, New 
     Mexico.
       (5) Compact.--The term ``Compact'' means the Upper Colorado 
     River Basin Compact as consented to by the Act of April 6, 
     1949 (63 Stat. 31, chapter 48).
       (6) Contract.--The term ``Contract'' means the contract 
     between the United States and the Nation setting forth 
     certain commitments, rights, and obligations of the United 
     States and the Nation, as described in paragraph 6.0 of the 
     Agreement.
       (7) Depletion.--The term ``depletion'' means the depletion 
     of the flow of the San Juan River stream system in State of 
     New Mexico by a particular use of water (including any 
     depletion incident to the use) and represents the diversion 
     from the stream system by the use, less return flows to the 
     stream system from the use.
       (8) Draft impact statement.--The term ``Draft Impact 
     Statement'' means the draft

[[Page S4770]]

     environmental impact statement prepared by the Bureau of 
     Reclamation for the Project dated March 2007.
       (9) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the Reclamation Waters 
     Settlements Fund established by section 201(a).
       (10) Hydrologic determination.--The term ``hydrologic 
     determination'' means the draft hydrologic determination 
     entitled ``Water Availability from Navajo Reservoir and the 
     Upper Colorado River Basin for Use in New Mexico,'' prepared 
     by the Bureau of Reclamation pursuant to section 11 of the 
     Act of June 13, 1962 (Public Law 87-483; 76 Stat. 99), and 
     dated May 2006.
       (11) Nation.--The term ``Nation'' means the Navajo Nation, 
     a body politic and federally-recognized Indian nation as 
     provided for in section 101(2) of the Federally Recognized 
     Indian Tribe List of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 497a(2)), also known 
     variously as the ``Navajo Tribe,'' the ``Navajo Tribe of 
     Arizona, New Mexico & Utah,'' and the ``Navajo Tribe of 
     Indians'' and other similar names, and includes all bands of 
     Navajo Indians and chapters of the Navajo Nation.
       (12) Navajo indian irrigation project.--The term ``Navajo 
     Indian Irrigation Project'' means the Navajo Indian 
     irrigation project authorized by section 2 of Public Law 87-
     483 (76 Stat. 96).
       (13) Navajo reservoir.--The term ``Navajo Reservoir'' means 
     the reservoir created by the impoundment of the San Juan 
     River at Navajo Dam, as authorized by the Act of April 11, 
     1956 (commonly known as the ``Colorado River Storage Project 
     Act'') (43 U.S.C. 620 et seq.).
       (14) Navajo nation municipal pipeline.--The term ``Navajo 
     Nation Municipal Pipeline'' means the pipeline used to convey 
     the water of the Animas-La Plata Project of the Navajo Nation 
     from the City of Farmington, New Mexico, to communities of 
     the Navajo Nation located in close proximity to the San Juan 
     River Valley in State of New Mexico (including the City of 
     Shiprock), as authorized by section 15(b) of the Colorado Ute 
     Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-
     585; 102 Stat. 2973; 114 Stat. 2763A-263).
       (15) Non-navajo irrigation district.--The term ``Non-Navajo 
     Irrigation Districts'' means--
       (A) the Hammond Conservancy District;
       (B) the Bloomfield Irrigation District; and
       (C) any other community ditch organization in the San Juan 
     River basin in State of New Mexico.
       (16) Project.--The term ``Project'' means the Northwestern 
     New Mexico Rural Water Supply Project (commonly known as the 
     ``Navajo-Gallup Pipeline Project'') authorized under section 
     302(a), as substantially described as the preferred 
     alternative in the Draft Impact Statement.
       (17) Project participants.--The term ``Project 
     Participants'' means the City, the Nation, and the Jicarilla 
     Apache Nation.
       (18) Resolution.--The term ``Resolution'' means the 
     Resolution of the Upper Colorado River Commission entitled 
     ``Use and Accounting of Upper Basin Water Supplied to the 
     Lower Basin in New Mexico by the Proposed Project'' and dated 
     June 17, 2003.
       (19) San juan river recovery implementation program.--The 
     term ``San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program'' means 
     the intergovernmental program established pursuant to the 
     cooperative agreement dated October 21, 1992 (including any 
     amendments to the program).
       (20) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of 
     Reclamation or any other designee.
       (21) Stream adjudication.--The term ``stream adjudication'' 
     means the general stream adjudication that is the subject of 
     New Mexico v. United States, et al., No. 75-185 (11th Jud. 
     Dist., San Juan County, New Mexico) (involving claims to 
     waters of the San Juan River and the tributaries of that 
     river).
       (22) Trust fund.--The term ``Trust Fund'' means the Navajo 
     Nation Water Resources Development Trust Fund established by 
     section 402(a).

     SEC. 3. COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.

       (a) Effect of Execution of Agreement.--The execution of the 
     Agreement under section 401(a)(2) shall not constitute a 
     major Federal action under the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
       (b) Compliance With Environmental Laws.--In carrying out 
     this Act, the Secretary shall comply with each law of the 
     Federal Government relating to the protection of the 
     environment, including--
       (1) the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 
     U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); and
       (2) the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
     seq.).

   TITLE I--AMENDMENTS TO THE COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT ACT AND 
                           PUBLIC LAW 87-483

     SEC. 101. AMENDMENTS TO THE COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT 
                   ACT.

       (a) Participating Projects.--Paragraph (2) of the first 
     section of the Act of April 11, 1956 (commonly known as the 
     ``Colorado River Storage Project Act'') (43 U.S.C. 620(2)) is 
     amended by inserting ``the Northwestern New Mexico Rural 
     Water Supply Project,'' after ``Fruitland Mesa,''.
       (b) Navajo Reservoir Water Bank.--The Act of April 11, 1956 
     (commonly known as the ``Colorado River Storage Project 
     Act'') is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 16 (43 U.S.C. 620o) as section 
     17; and
       (2) by inserting after section 15 (43 U.S.C. 620n) the 
     following:
       ``Sec. 16. (a) The Secretary of the Interior may create and 
     operate within the available capacity of Navajo Reservoir a 
     top water bank.
       ``(b) Water made available for the top water bank in 
     accordance with subsections (c) and (d) shall not be subject 
     to section 11 of Public Law 87-483 (76 Stat. 99).
       ``(c) The top water bank authorized under subsection (a) 
     shall be operated in a manner that--
       ``(1) is consistent with applicable law; and
       ``(2) does not impair the ability of the Secretary of the 
     Interior to deliver water under contracts entered into 
     under--
       ``(A) Public Law 87-483 (76 Stat. 96); and
       ``(B) New Mexico State Engineer File Nos. 2847, 2848, 2849, 
     and 2917.
       ``(d)(1) The Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with 
     the State of New Mexico (acting through the Interstate Stream 
     Commission), shall develop any terms and procedures for the 
     storage, accounting, and release of water in the top water 
     bank that are necessary to comply with subsection (c).
       ``(2) The terms and procedures developed under paragraph 
     (1) shall include provisions requiring that--
       ``(A) the storage of banked water shall be subject to 
     approval under State law by the New Mexico State Engineer to 
     ensure that impairment of any existing water right does not 
     occur, including storage of water under New Mexico State 
     Engineer File No. 2849;
       ``(B) water in the top water bank be subject to evaporation 
     and other losses during storage;
       ``(C) water in the top water bank be released for delivery 
     to the owner or assigns of the banked water on request of the 
     owner, subject to reasonable scheduling requirements for 
     making the release; and
       ``(D) water in the top water bank be the first water 
     spilled or released for flood control purposes in 
     anticipation of a spill, on the condition that top water bank 
     water shall not be released or included for purposes of 
     calculating whether a release should occur for purposes of 
     satisfying releases required under the San Juan River 
     Recovery Implementation Program.
       ``(e) The Secretary of the Interior may charge fees to 
     water users that use the top water bank in amounts sufficient 
     to cover the costs incurred by the United States in 
     administering the water bank.''.

     SEC. 102. AMENDMENTS TO PUBLIC LAW 87-483.

       (a) Navajo Indian Irrigation Project.--Public Law 87-483 
     (76 Stat. 96) is amended by striking section 2 and inserting 
     the following:
       ``Sec. 2. (a) In accordance with the Act of April 11, 1956 
     (commonly known as the `Colorado River Storage Project Act') 
     (43 U.S.C. 620 et seq.), the Secretary of the Interior is 
     authorized to construct, operate, and maintain the Navajo 
     Indian Irrigation Project to provide irrigation water to a 
     service area of not more than 110,630 acres of land.
       ``(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the average diversion by 
     the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project from the Navajo 
     Reservoir over any consecutive 10-year period shall be the 
     lesser of--
       ``(A) 508,000 acre-feet per year; or
       ``(B) the quantity of water necessary to supply an average 
     depletion of 270,000 acre-feet per year.
       ``(2) The quantity of water diverted for any 1 year shall 
     not be more than 15 percent of the average diversion 
     determined under paragraph (1).
       ``(c) In addition to being used for irrigation, the water 
     diverted by the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project under 
     subsection (b) may be used within the area served by Navajo 
     Indian Irrigation Project facilities for the following 
     purposes:
       ``(1) Aquaculture purposes, including the rearing of fish 
     in support of the San Juan River Basin Recovery 
     Implementation Program authorized by Public Law 106-392 (114 
     Stat. 1602).
       ``(2) Domestic, industrial, or commercial purposes relating 
     to agricultural production and processing.
       ``(3) The generation of hydroelectric power as an incident 
     to the diversion of water by the Navajo Indian Irrigation 
     Project for authorized purposes.
       ``(4) The implementation of the alternate water source 
     provisions described in subparagraph 9.2 of the agreement 
     executed under section 401(a)(2) of the Northwestern New 
     Mexico Rural Water Projects Act.
       ``(d) The Navajo Indian Irrigation Project water diverted 
     under subsection (b) may be transferred to areas located 
     within or outside the area served by Navajo Indian Irrigation 
     Project facilities, and within or outside the boundaries of 
     the Navajo Nation, for any beneficial use in accordance 
     with--
       ``(1) the agreement executed under section 401(a)(2) of the 
     Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act;
       ``(2) the contract executed under section 304(a)(2)(B) of 
     the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects Act; and
       ``(3) any other applicable law.
       ``(e)(1) The Secretary may use the capacity of the Navajo 
     Indian Irrigation Project works to convey water supplies 
     for--
       ``(A) the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Supply 
     Project under section 302 of the Northwestern New Mexico 
     Rural Water Projects Act; or
       ``(B) other nonirrigation purposes authorized under 
     subsection (c) or (d).

[[Page S4771]]

       ``(2) The Secretary shall not reallocate, or require 
     repayment of, construction costs of the Navajo Indian 
     Irrigation Project because of the conveyance of water 
     supplies under paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Runoff Above Navajo Dam.--Section 11 of Public Law 87-
     483 (76 Stat. 100) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(d)(1) For purposes of implementing in a year of 
     prospective shortage the water allocation procedures 
     established by subsection (a), the Secretary of the Interior 
     shall determine the quantity of any shortages and the 
     appropriate apportionment of water using the normal diversion 
     requirements on the flow of the San Juan River originating 
     above Navajo Dam based on the following criteria:
       ``(A) The quantity of diversion or water delivery for the 
     current year anticipated to be necessary to irrigate land in 
     accordance with cropping plans prepared by contractors.
       ``(B) The annual diversion or water delivery demands for 
     the current year anticipated for non-irrigation uses under 
     water delivery contracts, including the demand for delivery 
     for uses in the State of Arizona under the Northwestern New 
     Mexico Rural Water Supply Project authorized by section 
     302(a) of the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects 
     Act, but excluding any current demand for surface water for 
     placement into aquifer storage for future recovery and use.
       ``(C) An annual normal diversion demand of 135,000 acre-
     feet for the initial stage of the San Juan-Chama Project 
     authorized by section 8.
       ``(2) The Secretary shall not include in the normal 
     diversion requirements--
       ``(A) the quantity of water that reliably can be 
     anticipated to be diverted or delivered under a contract from 
     inflows to the San Juan River arising below Navajo Dam under 
     New Mexico State Engineer File No. 3215; or
       ``(B) the quantity of water anticipated to be supplied 
     through reuse.
       ``(3) If the State of New Mexico determines that water uses 
     under Navajo Reservoir water supply contracts or diversions 
     by the San Juan-Chama Project need to be reduced in any 1 
     year for the State to comply with the Upper Colorado River 
     Basin Compact, as consented to by the Act of April 6, 1949 
     (63 Stat. 31, chapter 48), the Secretary shall reduce the 
     normal diversion requirements for the year to reflect the 
     water use or diversion limitations imposed by the State of 
     New Mexico.
       ``(e)(1) If the Secretary determines that there is a 
     shortage of water under subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     allocate the shortage to the demands on the Navajo Reservoir 
     water supply in the following order of priority:
       ``(A) The demand for delivery for uses in the State of 
     Arizona under the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Supply 
     Project authorized by section 303 of the Northwestern New 
     Mexico Rural Water Projects Act, excluding the quantity of 
     water anticipated to be diverted for the uses from inflows to 
     the San Juan River that arise below Navajo Dam in accordance 
     with New Mexico State Engineer File No. 3215.
       ``(B) The demand for delivery for uses allocated under 
     paragraph 8.2 of the agreement executed under section 
     401(a)(2) of the Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Projects 
     Act, excluding the quantity of water anticipated to be 
     diverted for such uses under State Engineer File No. 3215.
       ``(C) The uses in the State of New Mexico that are 
     determined under subsection (d), in accordance with the 
     procedure for apportioning the water supply under subsection 
     (a).
       ``(2) For any year for which the Secretary determines and 
     allocates a shortage in the Navajo Reservoir water supply, 
     the Secretary shall not deliver, and contractors of the water 
     supply shall not divert, any of the water supply for 
     placement into aquifer storage for future recovery and use.
       ``(3) To determine the occurrence and amount of any 
     shortage to contracts entered into under this section, the 
     Secretary shall not include as available storage any water 
     stored in a top water bank in Navajo Reservoir established 
     under section 16(a) of the Act of April 11, 1956 (commonly 
     known as the `Colorado River Storage Project Act').
       ``(f) The Secretary of the Interior shall apply the sharing 
     and apportionment of water determined under subsections (a), 
     (d), and (e) on an annual volume basis.
       ``(g) The Secretary of the Interior may revise a 
     determination of shortages, apportionments, or allocations of 
     water under subsections (a), (d), and (e) on the basis of 
     information relating to water supply conditions that was not 
     available at the time at which the determination was made.
       ``(h) Nothing in this section prohibits the Secretary from 
     reallocating water for any year, including a year in which a 
     shortage is determined under subsection (a), in accordance 
     with cooperative water agreements between water users 
     providing for a sharing of water supplies.
       ``(i) Any water available for diversion under New Mexico 
     State Engineer File No. 3215 shall be distributed, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, in proportionate amounts to the 
     diversion demands of all contractors and subcontractors of 
     the Navajo Reservoir water supply that are diverting water 
     below Navajo Dam.''.

     SEC. 103. EFFECT ON FEDERAL WATER LAW.

       Unless expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this Act 
     modifies, conflicts with, preempts, or otherwise affects--
       (1) the Boulder Canyon Project Act (43 U.S.C. 617 et seq.);
       (2) the Boulder Canyon Project Adjustment Act (54 Stat. 
     774, chapter 643);
       (3) the Act of April 11, 1956 (commonly known as the 
     ``Colorado River Storage Project Act'') (43 U.S.C. 620 et 
     seq.);
       (4) the Act of September 30, 1968 (commonly known as the 
     ``Colorado River Basin Project Act'') (82 Stat. 885);
       (5) Public Law 87-483 (76 Stat. 96);
       (6) the Treaty between the United States of America and 
     Mexico representing utilization of waters of the Colorado and 
     Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, signed at Washington 
     February 3, 1944 (59 Stat. 1219);
       (7) the Colorado River Compact of 1922, as approved by the 
     Presidential Proclamation of June 25, 1929 (46 Stat. 3000);
       (8) the Compact;
       (9) the Act of April 6, 1949 (63 Stat. 31, chapter 48);
       (10) the Jicarilla Apache Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act 
     (106 Stat. 2237); or
       (11) section 205 of the Energy and Water Development 
     Appropriations Act, 2005 (118 Stat. 2949).

              TITLE II--RECLAMATION WATER SETTLEMENTS FUND

     SEC. 201. RECLAMATION WATER SETTLEMENTS FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of 
     the United States a fund, to be known as the ``Reclamation 
     Water Settlements Fund'', consisting of--
       (1) such amounts as are deposited to the Fund under 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Fund under subsection (d).
       (b) Deposits to Fund.--
       (1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2028, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the 
     Fund, if available, $100,000,000 of the revenues that would 
     otherwise be deposited for the fiscal year in the fund 
     established by the first section of the Act of June 17, 1902 
     (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093).
       (2) Availability of amounts.--Amounts deposited in the Fund 
     under paragraph (1) shall be made available pursuant to this 
     section--
       (A) without further appropriation; and
       (B) in addition to amounts appropriated pursuant to any 
     authorization contained in any other provision of law.
       (c) Expenditures From Fund.--
       (1) In general.--For each of fiscal years 2018 through 
     2030, on request by the Secretary pursuant to paragraphs (2) 
     and (3), the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from 
     the Fund to the Secretary an amount not to exceed 
     $100,000,000 for the fiscal year requested.
       (2) Requests.--The Secretary may request a transfer from 
     the Fund to implement a settlement agreement approved by 
     Congress that resolves, in whole or in part, litigation 
     involving the United States or any other agreement approved 
     by Congress that is entered into by the Secretary, if the 
     settlement or other agreement requires the Bureau of 
     Reclamation to plan, design, and construct--
       (A) water supply infrastructure; or
       (B) a project--
       (i) to rehabilitate a water delivery system to conserve 
     water; or
       (ii) to restore fish and wildlife habitat or otherwise 
     improve environmental conditions associated with or affected 
     by a reclamation project that is in existence on the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (3) Use for completion of project.--
       (A) Priorities.--
       (i) First priority.--The first priority for expenditure of 
     amounts in the Fund shall be for the purposes described in 
     subparagraph (B).
       (ii) Other purposes.--Any amounts in the Fund that are not 
     needed for the purposes described in subparagraph (B) may be 
     used for other purposes authorized in paragraph (2).
       (B) Completion of project.--Effective beginning January 1, 
     2018, if, in the judgment of the Secretary, the deadline 
     described in section 401(f)(1)(A)(ix) is unlikely to be met 
     because a sufficient amount of funding is not otherwise 
     available through appropriations made available pursuant to 
     section 309(a), the Secretary shall request the Secretary of 
     the Treasury to transfer from the Fund to the Secretary such 
     amounts on an annual basis pursuant to paragraph (1), not to 
     exceed a total of $500,000,000, as are necessary to pay the 
     Federal share of the costs, and substantially complete as 
     expeditiously as practicable, the construction of the water 
     supply infrastructure authorized as part of the Project.
       (C) Prohibited use of fund.--The Secretary shall not use 
     any amount transferred from the Fund under subparagraph (A) 
     to carry out any other feature or activity described in title 
     IV other than a feature or activity relating to the 
     construction of the water supply infrastructure authorized as 
     part of the Project.
       (d) Investment of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest 
     such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current 
     withdrawals.
       (2) Interest-bearing obligations.--Investments may be made 
     only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
       (3) Acquisition of obligations.--For the purpose of 
     investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be 
     acquired--
       (A) on original issue at the issue price; or

[[Page S4772]]

       (B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market 
     price.
       (4) Sale of obligations.--Any obligation acquired by the 
     Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the 
     market price.
       (5) Credits to fund.--The interest on, and the proceeds 
     from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the 
     Fund shall be credited to, and form a part of, the Fund.
       (e) Transfers of Amounts.--
       (1) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred to 
     the Fund under this section shall be transferred at least 
     monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the Fund on 
     the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (2) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in 
     amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior 
     estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required 
     to be transferred.
       (f) Termination.--On September 30, 2030--
       (1) the Fund shall terminate; and
       (2) the unexpended and unobligated balance of the Fund 
     shall be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury.

     TITLE III--NORTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

     SEC. 301. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this subtitle are--
       (1) to authorize the Secretary to construct the 
     Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Supply Project;
       (2) to allocate the water supply for the Project among the 
     Nation, the city of Gallup, New Mexico, and the Jicarilla 
     Apache Nation; and
       (3) to authorize the Secretary to enter into Project 
     repayment contracts with the city of Gallup and the Jicarilla 
     Apache Nation.

     SEC. 302. AUTHORIZATION OF NORTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL 
                   WATER SUPPLY PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Commissioner of Reclamation, is authorized to design, 
     construct, operate, and maintain the Project in substantial 
     accordance with the preferred alternative in the Draft Impact 
     Statement.
       (b) Project Facilities.--To provide for the delivery of San 
     Juan River water to Project Participants, the Secretary may 
     construct, operate, and maintain the Project facilities 
     described in the preferred alternative in the Draft Impact 
     Statement, including:
       (1) A pumping plant on the San Juan River in the vicinity 
     of Kirtland, New Mexico.
       (2)(A) A main pipeline from the San Juan River near 
     Kirtland, New Mexico, to Shiprock, New Mexico, and Gallup, 
     New Mexico, which follows United States Highway 491.
       (B) Any pumping plants associated with the pipeline 
     authorized under subparagraph (A).
       (3)(A) A main pipeline from Cutter Reservoir to Ojo Encino, 
     New Mexico, which follows United States Highway 550.
       (B) Any pumping plants associated with the pipeline 
     authorized under subparagraph (A).
       (4)(A) Lateral pipelines from the main pipelines to Nation 
     communities in the States of New Mexico and Arizona.
       (B) Any pumping plants associated with the pipelines 
     authorized under subparagraph (A).
       (5) Any water regulation, storage or treatment facility, 
     service connection to an existing public water supply system, 
     power substation, power distribution works, or other 
     appurtenant works (including a building or access road) that 
     is related to the Project facilities authorized by paragraphs 
     (1) through (4), including power transmission facilities to 
     connect Project facilities to existing high-voltage 
     transmission facilities.
       (c) Acquisition of Land.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may acquire any land or interest in land that is 
     necessary to construct, operate, and maintain the Project 
     facilities authorized under subsection (b).
       (2) Limitation.--The Secretary may not condemn water rights 
     for purposes of the Project.
       (d) Conditions.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall not commence 
     construction of the facilities authorized under subsection 
     (b) until such time as--
       (A) the Secretary executes the Agreement and the Contract;
       (B) the contracts authorized under section 304 are 
     executed;
       (C) the Secretary--
       (i) completes an environmental impact statement for the 
     Project; and
       (ii) has issued a record of decision that provides for a 
     preferred alternative; and
       (D) the State of New Mexico has made arrangements with the 
     Secretary to contribute $25,000,000 toward the construction 
     costs of the Project.
       (2) Cost sharing.--State contributions required under 
     paragraph (1)(D) shall be in addition to amounts that the 
     State of New Mexico contributes for the planning and 
     construction of regional facilities to distribute Project 
     water to the City and surrounding Nation communities before 
     the date on which the City executes a repayment contract 
     under section 304(b).
       (3) Effect.--The design and construction of the Project 
     shall not be subject to the Indian Self-Determination and 
     Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.).
       (e) Power Issues.--
       (1) Reservation.--The Secretary shall reserve, from 
     existing reservations of Colorado River Storage Project power 
     for Bureau of Reclamation projects, up to 26 megawatts of 
     power for use by the Project.
       (2) Reallocation of costs.--Notwithstanding the Act of 
     April 11, 1956 (commonly known as the ``Colorado River 
     Storage Project Act'') (43 U.S.C. 620 et seq.), the Secretary 
     shall not reallocate or reassign any cost associated with the 
     Project from an entity covered by this title to the power 
     function.
       (f) Conveyance of Project Facilities.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized to enter into 
     separate agreements with the City and the Nation to convey 
     each Project facility authorized under subsection (b) to the 
     City and the Nation after--
       (A) completion of construction of the Project; and
       (B) execution of a Project operations agreement approved by 
     the Secretary and the Project Participants that sets forth--
       (i) any terms and conditions that the Secretary determines 
     are necessary--

       (I) to ensure the continuation of the intended benefits of 
     the Project; and
       (II) to fulfill the purposes of this subtitle;

       (ii) requirements acceptable to the Secretary and the 
     Project Participants for--

       (I) the distribution of water under the Project; and
       (II) the allocation and payment of annual operation, 
     maintenance, and replacement costs of the Project based on 
     the proportionate uses of Project facilities; and

       (iii) conditions and requirements acceptable to the 
     Secretary and the Project Participants for operating and 
     maintaining each Project facility on completion of the 
     conveyance, including the requirement that the City and the 
     Nation shall--

       (I) comply with--

       (aa) the Compact; and
       (bb) other applicable law; and

       (II) be responsible for--

       (aa) the operation, maintenance, and replacement of each 
     Project facility; and
       (bb) the accounting and management of water conveyance and 
     Project finances, as necessary to administer and fulfill the 
     conditions of the Contract executed under section 
     304(a)(2)(B).
       (2) Conveyance to the city of gallup or navajo nation.--In 
     conveying a Project facility under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall convey to--
       (A) the City the facilities and any land or interest in 
     land acquired by the United States for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the Project that are located 
     within the corporate boundaries of the City; and
       (B) the Nation the facilities and any land or interests in 
     land acquired by the United States for the construction, 
     operation, and maintenance of the Project that are located 
     outside the corporate boundaries of the City.
       (3) Effect of conveyance.--The conveyance of each Project 
     facility shall not affect the application of the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) relating to the 
     use of the water associated with the Project.
       (4) Notice of proposed conveyance.--Not later than 45 days 
     before the date of a proposed conveyance of any Project 
     facility, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Resources of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate 
     notice of the conveyance of each Project facility.
       (g) Colorado River Storage Project Power.--The conveyance 
     of Project facilities under subsection (f) shall not affect 
     the availability of Colorado River Storage Project power to 
     the Project under subsection (e).
       (h) Regional Use of Project Facilities.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), Project 
     facilities constructed under subsection (b) may be used to 
     treat and convey non-Project water or water that is not 
     allocated by subsection 303(b) if--
       (A) capacity is available without impairing any water 
     delivery to a Project Participant; and
       (B) the unallocated or non-Project water beneficiary--
       (i) has the right to use the water;
       (ii) agrees to pay the operation, maintenance, and 
     replacement costs assignable to the beneficiary for the use 
     of the Project facilities; and
       (iii) agrees to pay a fee established by the Secretary to 
     assist in the recovery of any capital cost relating to that 
     use.
       (2) Effect of payments.--Any payments to the United States 
     or the Nation for the use of unused capacity under this 
     subsection or for water under any subcontract with the Nation 
     or the Jicarilla Apache Nation shall not alter the 
     construction repayment requirements or the operation, 
     maintenance, and replacement payment requirements of the 
     Project Participants.

     SEC. 303. DELIVERY AND USE OF NORTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL 
                   WATER SUPPLY PROJECT WATER.

       (a) Use of Project Water.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with this Act and other 
     applicable law, water supply from the Project shall be used 
     for municipal, industrial, commercial, domestic, and stock 
     watering purposes.
       (2) Use on certain land.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Nation 
     may use Project water allocations on--
       (i) land held by the United States in trust for the Nation 
     and members of the Nation; and
       (ii) land held in fee by the Nation.

[[Page S4773]]

       (B) Transfer.--The Nation may transfer the purposes and 
     places of use of the allocated water in accordance with the 
     Agreement and applicable law.
       (3) Hydroelectric power.--Hydroelectric power may be 
     generated as an incident to the delivery of Project water 
     under paragraph (1).
       (4) Storage.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), any water 
     contracted for delivery under paragraph (1) that is not 
     needed for current water demands or uses may be delivered by 
     the Project for placement in underground storage in the State 
     of New Mexico for future recovery and use.
       (B) State approval.--Delivery of water under subparagraph 
     (A) is subject to--
       (i) approval by the State of New Mexico under applicable 
     provisions of State law relating to aquifer storage and 
     recovery; and
       (ii) the provisions of the Agreement and this Act.
       (b) Project Water and Capacity Allocations.--
       (1) Diversion.--The Project shall divert from the Navajo 
     Reservoir and the San Juan River a quantity of water that 
     does not exceed the lesser of--
       (A) 37,760 acre-feet of water; or
       (B) the quantity of water necessary to supply a depletion 
     from the San Juan River of 35,890 acre-feet.
       (2) Allocation.--
       (A) In general.--Water diverted under paragraph (1) shall 
     be allocated to the Project Participants in accordance with 
     subparagraphs (B) through (E), other provisions of this Act, 
     and other applicable law.
       (B) Allocation to the city of gallup.--The Project shall 
     deliver at the point of diversion from the San Juan River not 
     more than 7,500 acre-feet of water for use by the City.
       (C) Allocation to navajo nation communities in new 
     mexico.--For use by the Nation in the State of New Mexico, 
     the Project shall deliver at the points of diversion from the 
     San Juan River or at Navajo Reservoir the lesser of--
       (i) 22,650 acre-feet of water; or
       (ii) the quantity of water necessary to supply a depletion 
     from the San Juan River of 20,780 acre-feet of water.
       (D) Allocation to navajo nation communities in arizona.--In 
     accordance with subsection (d), the Project may deliver at 
     the point of diversion from the San Juan River not more than 
     6,411 acre-feet of water for use by the Nation in the State 
     of Arizona.
       (E) Allocation to jicarilla apache nation.--The Project 
     shall deliver at Navajo Reservoir not more than 1,200 acre-
     feet of water for use by the Jicarilla Apache Nation in the 
     southern portion of the Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation 
     in the State of New Mexico.
       (3) Use in excess of allocation quantity.--Notwithstanding 
     each allocation quantity limit described in subparagraphs 
     (B), (C), and (E) of paragraph (2), the Secretary may 
     authorize a Project Participant to exceed the allocation 
     quantity limit of that Project Participant if--
       (A) capacity is available without impairing any water 
     delivery to any other Project Participant; and
       (B) the Project Participant benefitting from the increased 
     allocation quantity--
       (i) has the right to use the additional water;
       (ii) agrees to pay the operation, maintenance, and 
     replacement costs relating to the additional use any Project 
     facility; and
       (iii) agrees to pay a fee established by the Secretary to 
     assist in recovering capital costs relating to that 
     additional use.
       (c) Sources of Water.--The sources of water for the Project 
     allocated by subsection (b) shall be water originating in--
       (1) drainage of the San Juan River above Navajo Dam, to be 
     supplied under New Mexico State Engineer File No. 2849; and
       (2) inflow to the San Juan River arising below Navajo Dam, 
     to be supplied under New Mexico State Engineer File No. 3215.
       (d) Conditions for Use in Arizona.--
       (1) Requirements.--Project water shall not be delivered for 
     use by any community of the Nation in the State of Arizona 
     under subsection (b)(2)(D) until the date on which--
       (A) the Secretary determines by hydrologic investigation 
     that sufficient water is reasonably likely to be available to 
     supply uses from water of the Colorado River system allocated 
     to the State of Arizona;
       (B) the Secretary submits to Congress the determination 
     described in subparagraph (A);
       (C) the Secretary determines that the uses in the State of 
     Arizona are within the apportionment of the water of the 
     Colorado River made to the State of Arizona through compact, 
     statute, or court decree;
       (D) Congress has approved a Navajo Reservoir supply 
     contract between the Nation and the United States to provide 
     for the delivery of Project water for the uses in Arizona;
       (E) the Navajo Nation and the State of Arizona have entered 
     into an agreement providing for delivery of water of the 
     Project for uses in Arizona; and
       (F) any other determination is made as may be required by 
     the Compact.
       (2) Accounting of uses in arizona.--Any depletion of water 
     from the San Juan River stream system in the State of New 
     Mexico that results from the diversion of water by the 
     Project for uses within the State of Arizona (including 
     depletion incidental to the diversion, impounding, or 
     conveyance of water in the State of New Mexico for uses in 
     the State of Arizona)--
       (A) shall be accounted for as a part of the Colorado River 
     System apportionments to the State of Arizona; and
       (B) shall not increase the total quantity of water to which 
     the State of Arizona is entitled to use under any compact, 
     statute, or court decree.
       (e) Forbearance.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), during 
     any year in which a shortage to the normal diversion 
     requirement for any use relating to the Project within the 
     State of Arizona occurs (as determined under section 11 of 
     Public Law 87-483 (76 Stat. 99)), the Nation may temporarily 
     forbear the delivery of the water supply of the Navajo 
     Reservoir for uses in the State of New Mexico under the 
     apportionments of water to the Navajo Indian Irrigation 
     Project and the normal diversion requirements of the Project 
     to allow an equivalent quantity of water to be delivered from 
     the Navajo Reservoir water supply for municipal and domestic 
     uses of the Nation in the State of Arizona under the Project.
       (2) Limitation of forbearance.--The Nation may forebear the 
     delivery of water under paragraph (1) of a quantity not 
     exceeding the quantity of the shortage to the normal 
     diversion requirement for any use relating to the Project 
     within the State of Arizona.
       (3) Effect.--The forbearance of the delivery of water under 
     paragraph (1) shall be subject to the requirements relating 
     to accounting and water quantity described in subsection 
     (d)(2).
       (f) Effect.--Nothing in this Act--
       (1) authorizes the marketing, leasing, or transfer of the 
     water supplies made available to the Nation under the 
     Contract to non-Navajo water users in States other than the 
     State of New Mexico; or
       (2) authorizes the forbearance of water uses in the State 
     of New Mexico to allow uses of water in other States other 
     than as authorized under subsection (e).
       (g) Consistency With Upper Colorado River Basin Compact.--
     In accordance with the Resolution and notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law--
       (1) water may be diverted by the Project from the San Juan 
     River in the State of New Mexico for use in the Lower 
     Colorado River Basin in the State of New Mexico; and
       (2) water diverted under paragraph (1) shall be a part of 
     the consumptive use apportionment made to the State of New 
     Mexico by Article III(a) of the Compact.

     SEC. 304. PROJECT CONTRACTS.

       (a) Navajo Nation Contract.--
       (1) Hydrologic determination.--Congress recognizes that the 
     Hydrologic Determination satisfactory to support approval of 
     the Contract has been completed.
       (2) Contract approval.--
       (A) Approval.--
       (i) In general.--Except to the extent that any provision of 
     the Contract conflicts with this Act, Congress approves, 
     ratifies, and incorporates by reference the Contract.
       (ii) Amendments.--To the extent any amendment is executed 
     to make the Contract consistent with this Act, that amendment 
     is authorized, ratified, and confirmed.
       (B) Execution of contract.--The Secretary, acting on behalf 
     of the United States, shall enter into the Contract to the 
     extent that the Contract does not conflict with this Act 
     (including any amendment that is required to make the 
     Contract consistent with this Act).
       (3) No repayment obligation.--The Nation is not obligated 
     to repay--
       (A) any share of the construction costs of the Nation 
     relating to the Project authorized by section 302(a); or
       (B) any costs relating to the construction of the Navajo 
     Indian Irrigation Project that may otherwise be allocable to 
     the Nation for use of any facility of the Navajo Indian 
     Irrigation Project to convey water to each Navajo community 
     under the Project.
       (4) Operation, maintenance, and replacement obligation.--
     Subject to subsection (f), the Nation shall pay any costs 
     relating to the operation, maintenance, and replacement of 
     each facility of the Project that are allocable to the 
     Nation.
       (5) Limitation, cancellation, termination, and 
     rescission.--The Contract may be limited by a term of years, 
     canceled, terminated, or rescinded only by an Act of 
     Congress.
       (b) City of Gallup Contract.--
       (1) Contract authorization.--To the extent consistent with 
     this Act, the Secretary is authorized to enter into a 
     repayment contract with the City that requires the City--
       (A) to repay, within a 50-year period, the share of any 
     construction cost of the City relating to the Project; and
       (B) to pay the operation, maintenance, and replacement 
     costs of the Project that are allocable to the City.
       (2) Share of construction costs.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     shall determine the share of the construction costs of the 
     City relating to the Project, based on the ability of the 
     City to pay the construction costs of each facility of the 
     Project that is allocable to the City.
       (B) Minimum percentage.--The share of the construction 
     costs of the City shall be at least 25 percent of the 
     construction costs of the Project that are allocable to the 
     City.
       (3) Excess construction costs.--Any construction costs of 
     the Project allocable to

[[Page S4774]]

     providing capacity to deliver water to the City that are in 
     excess of the share of the City of the construction costs of 
     the Project, as determined under paragraph (2), shall be 
     nonreimbursable.
       (4) Grant funds.--A grant from any other Federal source 
     shall not be credited toward the amount required to be repaid 
     by the City under a repayment contract.
       (5) Title transfer.--If title is transferred to the City 
     prior to repayment under section 302(f), the City shall be 
     required to provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary 
     of fulfillment of the remaining repayment obligation of the 
     City.
       (6) Operation, maintenance and replacement obligation.--The 
     City shall pay the operation, maintenance, and replacement 
     costs for each facility of the Project that is allocable to 
     the City.
       (7) Water delivery subcontract.--
       (A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the Secretary shall not enter into a contract under paragraph 
     (1) with the City until the City has secured a water supply 
     for the portion of the Project for which the City is 
     responsible by entering into, as approved by the Secretary, a 
     water delivery subcontract for a period of not less than 40 
     years beginning on the date on which the construction of any 
     facility of the Project serving the City is completed, but 
     for a period not exceeding 99 years, with--
       (i) the Nation, as authorized by the Contract; or
       (ii) the Jicarilla Apache Nation, as authorized by the 
     settlement contract between the United States and the 
     Jicarilla Apache Tribe, authorized by the Jicarilla Apache 
     Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act (Public Law 102-441; 106 
     Stat. 2237).
       (B) Effect.--Nothing in this paragraph--
       (i) prevents the City from obtaining an alternate source of 
     water for the portion of the Project for which the City is 
     responsible, subject to approval of the Secretary and the 
     State of New Mexico, acting through the New Mexico Interstate 
     Stream Commission and the New Mexico State Engineer; or
       (ii) obligates the Nation or the Jicarilla Apache Nation to 
     enter into a water delivery subcontract with the City.
       (c) Jicarilla Apache Nation Contract.--
       (1) Contract authorization.--To the extent consistent with 
     this Act, the Secretary is authorized to enter into a 
     repayment contract with the Jicarilla Apache Nation that 
     requires the Jicarilla Apache Nation--
       (A) to repay, within a 50-year period, the share of any 
     construction cost of the Jicarilla Apache Nation relating to 
     the Project; and
       (B) to pay the operation, maintenance, and replacement 
     costs of the Project that are allocable to the Jicarilla 
     Apache Nation.
       (2) Share of construction costs.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the Secretary 
     shall determine the share of the Jicarilla Apache Nation of 
     the construction costs of the Project, based on the ability 
     of the Jicarilla Apache Nation to pay the construction costs 
     of the Project facilities that are allocable to the Jicarilla 
     Apache Nation.
       (B) Minimum percentage.--The share of the Jicarilla Apache 
     Nation under subparagraph (A) shall be at least 25 percent of 
     the construction costs of the Project that are allocable to 
     the Jicarilla Apache Nation.
       (3) Excess construction costs.--Any construction costs of 
     the Project allocable to providing capacity to deliver water 
     to the Jicarilla Apache Nation that are in excess of the 
     share of the Jicarilla Apache Nation of the construction 
     costs of the Project, as determined under paragraph (2), 
     shall be nonreimbursable.
       (4) Grant funds.--A grant from any other Federal source 
     shall not be credited toward the share of the Jicarilla 
     Apache Nation of construction costs.
       (5) Navajo indian irrigation project costs.--The Jicarilla 
     Apache Nation shall have no obligation to repay any Navajo 
     Indian Irrigation Project construction costs that might 
     otherwise be allocable to the Jicarilla Apache Nation for use 
     of the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project facilities to convey 
     water to the Jicarilla Apache Nation.
       (6) Operation, maintenance and replacement obligation.--The 
     Jicarilla Apache Nation shall pay the operation, maintenance, 
     and replacement costs relating to each facility of the 
     Project that are allocable to the Jicarilla Apache Nation.
       (d) Capital Cost Allocations.--For purposes of determining 
     the capital repayment requirements of the Project 
     Participants under this section, the Secretary shall review 
     and, as appropriate, update the report prepared by the Bureau 
     of Reclamation in the Draft Impact Statement allocating 
     capital construction costs for the Project.
       (e) Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Cost 
     Allocations.--For purposes of determining the operation, 
     maintenance, and replacement obligations of the Project 
     Participants under this section, the Secretary shall review 
     and, as appropriate, update the report prepared by the Bureau 
     of Reclamation in the Draft Impact Statement that allocates 
     operation, maintenance, and replacement costs for the 
     Project.
       (f) Temporary Waivers of Payments.--
       (1) In general.--On the date on which the Project is 
     substantially complete and the Nation receives a delivery of 
     water generated by the Project, the Secretary may waive, for 
     a period of not more than 10 years, the operation, 
     maintenance, and replacement costs of the Project allocable 
     to the Nation that the Secretary determines are in excess of 
     the ability of the Nation to pay.
       (2) Payment by united states.--Any operation, maintenance, 
     or replacement costs waived by the Secretary under paragraph 
     (1) shall be paid by the United States.
       (3) Effect on contracts.--Failure of the Secretary to waive 
     costs under paragraph (1) because of a lack of availability 
     of Federal funding to pay the costs under paragraph (2) shall 
     not alter the obligations of the Nation or the United States 
     under a repayment contract.
       (4) Termination of authority.--The authority of the 
     Secretary to waive costs under paragraph (1) with respect to 
     a Project facility transferred to the Nation under section 
     302(f) shall terminate on the date on which the Project 
     facility is transferred.

     SEC. 305. USE OF NAVAJO NATION MUNICIPAL PIPELINE.

       In addition to use of the Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline 
     to convey the Animas-La Plata Project water of the Nation, 
     the Nation may use the Navajo Nation Municipal Pipeline to 
     convey water for other purposes (including purposes relating 
     to the Project).

     SEC. 306. AUTHORIZATION OF CONJUNCTIVE USE WELLS.

       (a) Conjunctive Groundwater Development Plan.--Not later 
     than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Nation, in consultation with the Secretary, shall complete a 
     conjunctive groundwater development plan for the wells 
     described in subsections (b) and (c).
       (b) Wells in the San Juan River Basin.--In accordance with 
     the conjunctive groundwater development plan, the Secretary 
     may construct or rehabilitate wells and related pipeline 
     facilities to provide capacity for the diversion and 
     distribution of not more than 1,670 acre-feet of groundwater 
     in the San Juan River Basin in the State of New Mexico for 
     municipal and domestic uses.
       (c) Wells in the Little Colorado and Rio Grande Basins.--
       (1) In general.--In accordance with the Project and 
     conjunctive groundwater development plan for the Nation, the 
     Secretary may construct or rehabilitate wells and related 
     pipeline facilities to provide capacity for the diversion and 
     distribution of--
       (A) not more than 680 acre-feet of groundwater in the 
     Little Colorado River Basin in the State of New Mexico;
       (B) not more than 80 acre-feet of groundwater in the Rio 
     Grande Basin in the State of New Mexico; and
       (C) not more than 770 acre-feet of groundwater in the 
     Little Colorado River Basin in the State of Arizona.
       (2) Use.--Groundwater diverted and distributed under 
     paragraph (1) shall be used for municipal and domestic uses.
       (d) Acquisition of Land.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     Secretary may acquire any land or interest in land that is 
     necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
     the wells and related pipeline facilities authorized under 
     subsections (b) and (c).
       (2) Limitation.--Nothing in this subsection authorizes the 
     Secretary to condemn water rights for the purposes described 
     in paragraph (1).
       (e) Condition.--The Secretary shall not commence any 
     construction activity relating to the wells described in 
     subsections (b) and (c) until the Secretary executes the 
     Agreement.
       (f) Conveyance of Wells.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall enter into an 
     agreement with the Nation to convey to the Nation--
       (A) any well or related pipeline facility constructed or 
     rehabilitated under subsections (a) and (b) after the wells 
     and related facilities have been completed; and
       (B) any land or interest in land acquired by the United 
     States for the construction, operation, and maintenance of 
     the well or related pipeline facility.
       (2) Operation, maintenance, and replacement.--On completion 
     of a conveyance under paragraph (1), the Nation shall assume 
     responsibility for the operation, maintenance, and 
     replacement of the well or related pipeline facility 
     conveyed.
       (3) Effect of conveyance.--The conveyance to the Nation of 
     the conjunctive use wells under paragraph (1) shall not 
     affect the application of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 
     (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
       (g) Use of Project Facilities.--The capacities of the 
     treatment facilities, main pipelines, and lateral pipelines 
     of the Project authorized by section 302(b) may be used to 
     treat and convey groundwater to Nation communities if the 
     Nation provides for payment of the operation, maintenance, 
     and replacement costs associated with the use of the 
     facilities or pipelines.
       (h) Limitations.--The diversion and use of groundwater by 
     wells constructed or rehabilitated under this section shall 
     be made in a manner consistent with applicable Federal and 
     State law.

     SEC. 307. SAN JUAN RIVER NAVAJO IRRIGATION PROJECTS.

       (a) Rehabilitation.--Subject to subsection (b), the 
     Secretary shall rehabilitate--
       (1) the Fruitland-Cambridge Irrigation Project to serve not 
     more than 3,335 acres of land, which shall be considered to 
     be the total serviceable area of the Project; and
       (2) the Hogback-Cudei Irrigation Project to serve not more 
     than 8,830 acres of land, which shall be considered to be the 
     total serviceable area of the Project.

[[Page S4775]]

       (b) Condition.--The Secretary shall not commence any 
     construction activity relating to the rehabilitation of the 
     Fruitland-Cambridge Irrigation Project or the Hogback-Cudei 
     Irrigation Project under subsection (a) until the Secretary 
     executes the Agreement.
       (c) Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Obligation.--
     Upon the date of completion of the rehabilitation, the Nation 
     shall assume the obligations for the operation, maintenance, 
     and replacement of each facility rehabilitated under this 
     section.

     SEC. 308. OTHER IRRIGATION PROJECTS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the State of New Mexico (acting through the Interstate Stream 
     Commission) and the Non-Navajo Irrigation Districts that 
     elect to participate, shall--
       (1) conduct a study of Non-Navajo Irrigation District 
     diversion and ditch facilities; and
       (2) based on the study, identify and prioritize a list of 
     projects, with associated cost estimates, that are 
     recommended to be implemented to repair, rehabilitate, or 
     reconstruct irrigation diversion and ditch facilities to 
     improve water use efficiency.
       (b) Grants.--The Secretary may provide grants to, and enter 
     into cooperative agreements with, the Non-Navajo Irrigation 
     Districts to plan, design, or otherwise implement the 
     projects identified under subsection (a)(2).
       (c) Cost-Sharing.--
       (1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the total cost of 
     carrying out a project under subsection (b) shall be not more 
     than 50 percent.
       (2) Form.--The non-Federal share required under paragraph 
     (1) may be in the form of in-kind contributions, including 
     the contribution of any valuable asset or service that the 
     Secretary determines would substantially contribute to a 
     project carried out under subsection (b).
       (3) State contribution.--The Secretary may accept from the 
     State of New Mexico a partial or total contribution toward 
     the non-Federal share for a project carried out under 
     subsection (b).

     SEC. 309. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Authorization of Appropriations for Northwestern New 
     Mexico Rural Water Supply Project.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary to construct the Project such sums as are 
     necessary for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2022.
       (2) Adjustments.--The amount under paragraph (1) shall be 
     adjusted by such amounts as may be required by reason of 
     changes since 2005 in construction costs, as indicated by 
     engineering cost indices applicable to the types of 
     construction involved.
       (3) Use.--In addition to the uses authorized under 
     paragraph (1), amounts made available under that paragraph 
     may be used for the conduct of related activities to comply 
     with Federal environmental laws.
       (b) Appropriations for Conjunctive Use Wells.--
       (1) San juan wells.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary for the construction or rehabilitation of 
     conjunctive use wells under section 306(b) $30,000,000, as 
     adjusted under paragraph (3), for the period of fiscal years 
     2008 through 2018.
       (2) Wells in the little colorado and rio grande basins.--
     There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 
     the construction or rehabilitation of conjunctive use wells 
     under section 306(c) such sums as are necessary for the 
     period of fiscal years 2008 through 2024.
       (3) Adjustments.--The amount under paragraph (1) shall be 
     adjusted by such amounts as may be required by reason of 
     changes since 2004 in construction costs, as indicated by 
     engineering cost indices applicable to the types of 
     construction or rehabilitation involved.
       (4) Nonreimbursable expenditures.--Amounts made available 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be nonreimbursable to the 
     United States.
       (5) Use.--In addition to the uses authorized under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2), amounts made available under that 
     paragraph may be used for the conduct of related activities 
     to comply with Federal environmental laws.
       (c) San Juan River Irrigation Projects.--
       (1) In general.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Secretary--
       (A) to carry out section 307(a)(1), not more than 
     $7,700,000, as adjusted under paragraph (2), for the period 
     of fiscal years 2008 through 2014; and
       (B) to carry out section 307(a)(2), not more than 
     $15,400,000, as adjusted under paragraph (2), for the period 
     of fiscal years 2008 through 2017.
       (2) Adjustment.--The amounts made available under paragraph 
     (1) shall be adjusted by such amounts as may be required by 
     reason of changes since January 1, 2004, in construction 
     costs, as indicated by engineering cost indices applicable to 
     the types of construction involved in the rehabilitation.
       (3) Nonreimbursable expenditures.--Amounts made available 
     under this subsection shall be nonreimbursable to the United 
     States.
       (d) Other Irrigation Projects.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out section 308 
     $11,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2017.
       (e) Cultural Resources.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may use not more than 4 
     percent of amounts made available under subsections (a) and 
     (b) for the survey, recovery, protection, preservation, and 
     display of archaeological resources in the area of a Project 
     facility or conjunctive use well.
       (2) Nonreimbursable expenditures.--Any amounts made 
     available under paragraph (1) shall be nonreimbursable and 
     nonreturnable to the United States.
       (f) Fish and Wildlife Facilities.--
       (1) In general.--In association with the development of the 
     Project, the Secretary may use not more than 4 percent of 
     amounts made available under subsections (a) and (b) to 
     purchase land and construct and maintain facilities to 
     mitigate the loss of, and improve conditions for the 
     propagation of, fish and wildlife if any such purchase, 
     construction, or maintenance will not affect the operation of 
     any water project or use of water.
       (2) Nonreimbursable expenditures.--Any amounts expended 
     under paragraph (1) shall be nonreimbursable and 
     nonreturnable to the United States.

                  TITLE IV--NAVAJO NATION WATER RIGHTS

     SEC. 401. AGREEMENT.

       (a) Agreement Approval.--
       (1) Approval by congress.--Except to the extent that any 
     provision of the Agreement conflicts with this Act, Congress 
     approves, ratifies, and incorporates by reference the 
     Agreement (including any amendments to the Agreement that are 
     executed to make the Agreement consistent with this Act).
       (2) Execution by secretary.--The Secretary, acting on 
     behalf of the United States, shall enter into the Agreement 
     to the extent that the Agreement does not conflict with this 
     Act, including--
       (A) any exhibits to the Agreement requiring the signature 
     of the Secretary; and
       (B) any amendments to the Agreement necessary to make the 
     Agreement consistent with this Act.
       (3) Authority of secretary.--The Secretary may carry out 
     any action that the Secretary determines is necessary or 
     appropriate to implement the Agreement, the Contract, and 
     this section.
       (4) Administration of navajo reservoir releases.--The State 
     of New Mexico may administer releases of stored water from 
     Navajo Reservoir in accordance with subparagraph 9.1 of the 
     Agreement.
       (b) Water Available Under Contract.--
       (1) Quantities of water available.--
       (A) In general.--Water shall be made available annually 
     under the Contract for projects in the State of New Mexico 
     supplied from the Navajo Reservoir and the San Juan River 
     (including tributaries of the River) under New Mexico State 
     Engineer File Numbers 2849, 2883, and 3215 in the quantities 
     described in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Water quantities.--The quantities of water referred to 
     in subparagraph (A) are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Diversion    Depletion
                                                (acre-feet/  (acre-feet/
                                                   year)        year)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project                    508,000      270,000
Northwestern New Mexico Rural Water Supply           22,650       20,780
 Project
Animas-La Plata Project                               4,680        2,340
Total                                               535,330      293,120
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (C) Maximum quantity.--A diversion of water to the Nation 
     under the Contract for a project described in subparagraph 
     (B) shall not exceed the quantity of water necessary to 
     supply the amount of depletion for the project.
       (D) Terms, conditions, and limitations.--The diversion and 
     use of water under the Contract shall be subject to and 
     consistent with the terms, conditions, and limitations of the 
     Agreement, this Act, and any other applicable law.
       (2) Amendments to contract.--The Secretary, with the 
     consent of the Nation, may amend the Contract if the 
     Secretary determines that the amendment is--
       (A) consistent with the Agreement; and
       (B) in the interest of conserving water or facilitating 
     beneficial use by the Nation or a subcontractor of the 
     Nation.
       (3) Rights of the nation.--The Nation may, under the 
     Contract--
       (A) use tail water, wastewater, and return flows 
     attributable to a use of the water by the Nation or a 
     subcontractor of the Nation if--
       (i) the depletion of water does not exceed the quantities 
     described in paragraph (1); and
       (ii) the use of tail water, wastewater, or return flows is 
     consistent with the terms, conditions, and limitations of the 
     Agreement, the Resolution, and any other applicable law; and
       (B) change a point of diversion, change a purpose or place 
     of use, and transfer a right for depletion under this Act 
     (except for a point of diversion, purpose or place of use, or 
     right for depletion for use in the State of Arizona under 
     section 303(b)(2)(D)), to another use, purpose, place, or 
     depletion in the State of New Mexico to meet a water resource 
     or economic need of the Nation if--
       (i) the change or transfer is subject to and consistent 
     with the terms of the Agreement, the Partial Final Decree 
     described in paragraph 3.0 of the Agreement, the Contract, 
     and any other applicable law; and

[[Page S4776]]

       (ii) a change or transfer of water use by the Nation does 
     not alter any obligation of the United States, the Nation, or 
     another party to pay or repay project construction, 
     operation, maintenance, or replacement costs under this Act 
     and the Contract.
       (c) Subcontracts.--
       (1) In general.--
       (A) Subcontracts between nation and third parties.--The 
     Nation may enter into subcontracts for the delivery of 
     Project water under the Contract to third parties for any 
     beneficial use in the State of New Mexico (on or off land 
     held by the United States in trust for the Nation or a member 
     of the Nation or land held in fee by the Nation).
       (B) Approval required.--A subcontract entered into under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be effective until approved by the 
     Secretary in accordance with this subsection and the 
     Contract.
       (C) Submittal.--The Nation shall submit to the Secretary 
     for approval or disapproval any subcontract entered into 
     under this subsection.
       (D) Deadline.--The Secretary shall approve or disapprove a 
     subcontract submitted to the Secretary under subparagraph (C) 
     not later than the later of--
       (i) the date that is 180 days after the date on which the 
     subcontract is submitted to the Secretary; and
       (ii) the date that is 60 days after the date on which a 
     subcontractor complies with--

       (I) section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy 
     Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)); and
       (II) any other requirement of Federal law.

       (E) Enforcement.--A party to a subcontract may enforce the 
     deadline described in subparagraph (D) under section 1361 of 
     title 28, United States Code.
       (F) Compliance with other law.--A subcontract described in 
     subparagraph (A) shall comply with the Agreement, the Partial 
     Final Decree described in paragraph 3.0 of the Agreement, and 
     any other applicable law.
       (2) Alienation.--
       (A) Permanent alienation.--The Nation shall not permanently 
     alienate any right granted to the Nation under the Contract.
       (B) Maximum term.--The term of any water use subcontract 
     (including a renewal) under this subsection shall be not more 
     than 99 years.
       (3) Nonintercourse act compliance.--This subsection--
       (A) provides congressional authorization for the 
     subcontracting rights of the Nation; and
       (B) is deemed to fulfill any requirement that may be 
     imposed by section 2116 of the Revised Statutes (25 U.S.C. 
     177).
       (4) Forfeiture.--The nonuse of the water supply secured by 
     a subcontractor of the Nation under this subsection shall not 
     result in forfeiture, abandonment, relinquishment, or other 
     loss of any part of a right decreed to the Nation under the 
     Contract or this section.
       (5) No per capita payments.--No part of the revenue from a 
     water use subcontract under this subsection shall be 
     distributed to any member of the Nation on a per capita 
     basis.
       (d) Water Leases Not Requiring Subcontracts.--
       (1) Authority of nation.--
       (A) In general.--The Nation may lease, contract, or 
     otherwise transfer to another party or to another purpose or 
     place of use in the State of New Mexico (on or off land that 
     is held by the United States in trust for the Nation or a 
     member of the Nation or held in fee by the Nation) a water 
     right that--
       (i) is decreed to the Nation under the Agreement; and
       (ii) is not subject to the Contract.
       (B) Compliance with other law.--In carrying out an action 
     under this subsection, the Nation shall comply with the 
     Agreement, the Partial Final Decree described in paragraph 
     3.0 of the Agreement, the Supplemental Partial Final Decree 
     described in paragraph 4.0 of the Agreement, and any other 
     applicable law.
       (2) Alienation; maximum term.--
       (A) Alienation.--The Nation shall not permanently alienate 
     any right granted to the Nation under the Agreement.
       (B) Maximum term.--The term of any water use lease, 
     contract, or other arrangement (including a renewal) under 
     this subsection shall be not more than 99 years.
       (3) Nonintercourse act compliance.--This subsection--
       (A) provides congressional authorization for the lease, 
     contracting, and transfer of any water right described in 
     paragraph (1)(A); and
       (B) is deemed to fulfill any requirement that may be 
     imposed by the provisions of section 2116 of the Revised 
     Statutes (25 U.S.C. 177).
       (4) Forfeiture.--The nonuse of a water right of the Nation 
     by a lessee or contractor to the Nation under this subsection 
     shall not result in forfeiture, abandonment, relinquishment, 
     or other loss of any part of a right decreed to the Nation 
     under the Contract or this section.
       (e) Hydrographic Survey.--
       (1) Preparation.--The Secretary, on behalf of the United 
     States, shall prepare a hydrographic survey under the joint 
     supervision of the Secretary and the State of New Mexico 
     (acting through the New Mexico State Engineer) to identify 
     and quantify any historic or existing diversion or use of 
     water (including from surface water and underground water 
     sources) by the Nation or a member of the Nation from the San 
     Juan River Basin in the State of New Mexico, as described in 
     subparagraph 4.2 of the Agreement.
       (2) Authorization of appropriations.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), there is 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
     to carry out paragraph (1) $5,000,000 for the period of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
       (B) Adjustment.--The amounts made available under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be adjusted by such amounts as are 
     necessary to account for increases in the costs of preparing 
     a hydrographic survey after January 1, 2004, as determined 
     using cost indices applicable to the types of technical and 
     engineering work involved in preparing the hydrographic 
     survey.
       (C) Nonreimbursable expenditures.--Any amounts made 
     available under this paragraph shall be nonreimbursable to 
     the United States.
       (f) Nullification.--
       (1) Deadlines.--
       (A) In general.--In carrying out this section, the 
     following deadlines apply with respect to implementation of 
     the Agreement:
       (i) Agreement.--Not later than December 31, 2008, the 
     Secretary shall execute the Agreement.
       (ii) Contract.--Not later than December 31, 2009, the 
     Secretary and the Nation shall execute the Contract.
       (iii) Partial final decree.--Not later than December 31, 
     2012, the court in the stream adjudication shall have entered 
     the Partial Final Decree described in paragraph 3.0 of the 
     Agreement.
       (iv) Hydrographic survey.--Not later than December 31, 
     2013, the Secretary shall complete the hydrographic survey 
     described in subsection (e).
       (v) Fruitland-cambridge irrigation project.--Not later than 
     December 31, 2014, the rehabilitation construction of the 
     Fruitland-Cambridge Irrigation Project authorized under 
     section 307(a)(1) shall be completed.
       (vi) Supplemental partial final decree.--Not later than 
     December 31, 2015, the court in the stream adjudication shall 
     enter the Supplemental Partial Final Decree described in 
     subparagraph 4.0 of the Agreement.
       (vii) Hogback-cudei irrigation project.--Not later than 
     December 31, 2017, the rehabilitation construction of the 
     Hogback-Cudei Irrigation Project authorized under section 
     307(a)(2) shall be completed.
       (viii) Trust fund.--Not later than December 31, 2018, the 
     United States shall make all deposits into the Trust Fund 
     under section 402.
       (ix) Conjunctive wells.--Not later than December 31, 2018, 
     the funds authorized to be appropriated under section 
     309(b)(1) for the conjunctive use wells authorized under 
     section 306(b) should be appropriated.
       (x) Northwestern new mexico rural water supply project.--
     Not later than December 31, 2022, the construction of all 
     Project facilities shall be completed.
       (B) Extension.--A deadline described in subparagraph (A) 
     may be extended if the Nation, the United States (acting 
     through the Secretary), and the State of New Mexico (acting 
     through the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission) agree 
     that an extension is reasonably necessary.
       (2) Revocability of agreement, contract and 
     authorizations.--
       (A) Petition.--If the Nation determines that a deadline 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) is not substantially met, the 
     Nation may submit to the court in the stream adjudication a 
     petition to enter an order terminating the Agreement and 
     Contract.
       (B) Termination.--On issuance of an order to terminate the 
     Agreement and Contract under subparagraph (A)--
       (i) the Trust Fund shall be terminated;
       (ii) the balance of the Trust Fund shall be deposited in 
     the general fund of the Treasury;
       (iii) the authorizations for construction and 
     rehabilitation of water projects under this Act shall be 
     revoked and any Federal activity related to that construction 
     and rehabilitation shall be suspended; and
       (iv) this title and titles I and III shall be null and 
     void.
       (3) Conditions not causing nullification of settlement.--
       (A) In general.--If a condition described in subparagraph 
     (B) occurs, the Agreement and Contract shall not be nullified 
     or terminated.
       (B) Conditions.--The conditions referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) are as follows:
       (i) A lack of right to divert at the capacities of 
     conjunctive use wells constructed or rehabilitated under 
     section 306.
       (ii) A failure--

       (I) to determine or resolve an accounting of the use of 
     water under this Act in the State of Arizona;
       (II) to obtain a necessary water right for the consumptive 
     use of water in Arizona;
       (III) to contract for the delivery of water for use in 
     Arizona; or
       (IV) to construct and operate a lateral facility to deliver 
     water to a community of the Nation in Arizona, under the 
     Project.

       (4) Rights of the nation.--A tribal right under the 
     Contract, a water right adjudicated consistent with the 
     Contract in the stream adjudication by the Partial Final 
     Decree described in paragraph 3.0 of the Agreement, and any 
     other tribal water right stipulated, adjudicated, or decreed 
     as described in the Agreement and this Act shall be held in

[[Page S4777]]

     trust by the United States in perpetuity for the benefit of 
     the Nation.
       (g) Effect on Rights of Indian Tribes.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     nothing in the Agreement, the Contract, or this section 
     quantifies or adversely affects the land and water rights, or 
     claims or entitlements to water, of any Indian tribe or 
     community other than the rights, claims, or entitlements of 
     the Nation in, to, and from the San Juan River Basin in the 
     State of New Mexico.
       (2) Exception.--The right of the Nation to use water under 
     water rights the Nation has in other river basins in the 
     State of New Mexico shall be forborne to the extent that the 
     Nation supplies the uses for which the water rights exist by 
     diversions of water from the San Juan River Basin under the 
     Project consistent with subparagraph 9.13 of the Agreement.

     SEC. 402. TRUST FUND.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury a 
     fund to be known as the ``Navajo Nation Water Resources 
     Development Trust Fund'', consisting of--
       (1) such amounts as are appropriated to the Trust Fund 
     under subsection (f); and
       (2) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the 
     Trust Fund under subsection (d).
       (b) Use of Funds.--The Nation may use amounts in the Trust 
     Fund--
       (1) to investigate, construct, operate, maintain, or 
     replace water project facilities, including facilities 
     conveyed to the Nation under this Act; and
       (2) to investigate, implement, or improve a water 
     conservation measure (including a metering or monitoring 
     activity) necessary for the Nation to make use of a water 
     right of the Nation under the Agreement.
       (c) Management.--The Secretary shall manage the Trust Fund, 
     invest amounts in the Trust Fund, and make amounts available 
     from the Trust Fund for distribution to the Nation in 
     accordance with the American Indian Trust Fund Management 
     Reform Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
       (d) Investment of the Trust Fund.--The Secretary shall 
     invest amounts in the Trust Fund in accordance with--
       (1) the Act of April 1, 1880 (25 U.S.C. 161);
       (2) the first section of the Act of June 24, 1938 (25 
     U.S.C. 162a); and
       (3) the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 
     1994 (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.).
       (e) Conditions for Expenditures and Withdrawals.--
       (1) Tribal management plan.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (7), on approval by 
     the Secretary of a tribal management plan in accordance with 
     the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 
     (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the Nation may withdraw all or a 
     portion of the amounts in the Trust Fund.
       (B) Requirements.--In addition to any requirements under 
     the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994 
     (25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.), the tribal management plan shall 
     require that the Nation only use amounts in the Trust Fund 
     for the purposes described in subsection (b), including the 
     identification of water conservation measures to be 
     implemented in association with the agricultural water use of 
     the Nation.
       (2) Enforcement.--The Secretary may take judicial or 
     administrative action to enforce the provisions of any tribal 
     management plan to ensure that any amounts withdrawn from the 
     Trust Fund are used in accordance with this Act.
       (3) No liability.--Neither the Secretary nor the Secretary 
     of the Treasury shall be liable for the expenditure or 
     investment of any amounts withdrawn from the Trust Fund by 
     the Nation.
       (4) Expenditure plan.--
       (A) In general.--The Nation shall submit to the Secretary 
     for approval an expenditure plan for any portion of the 
     amounts in the Trust Fund made available under this section 
     that the Nation does not withdraw under this subsection.
       (B) Description.--The expenditure plan shall describe the 
     manner in which, and the purposes for which, funds of the 
     Nation remaining in the Trust Fund will be used.
       (C) Approval.--On receipt of an expenditure plan under 
     subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall approve the plan if the 
     Secretary determines that the plan is reasonable and 
     consistent with this Act.
       (5) Annual report.--The Nation shall submit to the 
     Secretary an annual report that describes any expenditures 
     from the Trust Fund during the year covered by the report.
       (6) Limitation.--No portion of the amounts in the Trust 
     Fund shall be distributed to any Nation member on a per 
     capita basis.
       (7) Conditions.--Any amount authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Trust Fund under subsection (f) shall not be available 
     for expenditure or withdrawal--
       (A) before December 31, 2018; and
       (B) until the date on which the court in the stream 
     adjudication has entered--
       (i) the Partial Final Decree described in paragraph 3.0 of 
     the Agreement; and
       (ii) the Supplemental Partial Final Decree described in 
     paragraph 4.0 of the Agreement.
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated for deposit in the Trust Fund--
       (1) $6,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012; 
     and
       (2) $4,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

     SEC. 403. WAIVERS AND RELEASES.

       (a) Execution.--The Nation, on behalf of itself and members 
     of the Nation (other than members in their capacity as 
     allottees), and the United States, acting through the 
     Secretary and in its capacity as trustee for the Nation, 
     shall execute waivers and releases in accordance with 
     paragraph 7.0 of the Agreement.
       (b) Reservation.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), the 
     Nation and its members (including members in their capacity 
     as allottees) and the United States, as trustee for the 
     Nation and allottees, shall retain the rights and claims 
     specified in paragraph 7.0 of the Agreement.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--The waivers and releases described in 
     subsection (a) shall be effective on the date on which the 
     Secretary publishes in the Federal Register a statement of 
     findings documenting that each of the deadlines described in 
     section 401(f)(1) have been met.
       (2) Deadline.--If the deadlines in section 401(f)(1)(A) 
     have not been met by the later of March 1, 2023, or the date 
     of any extension under section 401(f)(1)(B)--
       (A) the waivers and releases described in subsection (a) 
     shall be of no effect; and
       (B) section 401(f)(2)(B) shall apply.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Lugar, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Smith, 
        Mr. Obama, Mr. Reed, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
        Feingold, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Rockefeller, and, Mr. 
        Akaka):
  S. 1172. A bill to reduce hunger in the United States; to the 
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, President Eisenhower once stated, ``Every 
gun that is made, every warship that is launched, every rocket fired, 
signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not 
fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in armaments is 
not spending its money alone: it is spending the sweat of its laborers, 
the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.''
  In as trying a time as we live in today, his statement cannot ring 
more true. We are in the middle of a war with no seeming end in sight. 
We have daily debates about the numbers in our budget. But President 
Eisenhower was right. We are not spending our money alone.
  In a Nation as rich as ours, we should be able to arrange our 
priorities to meet the needs of our country, but the unfortunate 
reality is that in the United States today, children go hungry. 
Children count on school, not only for education but also for their 
meals. Seniors are forced to make a choice between life-saving 
medicines and groceries for their meals. Families are forced to make 
the difficult choice between paying for food and paying for utilities 
or their rent or mortgage or even their medicine or medical care. This 
is the reality of our America.
  As Senators, we often hear from families that tell us the difficulty 
in making ends meet. More and more working families are turning to food 
banks, pantries and soup kitchens for emergency food assistance. When 
examining the actual costs of housing, food, utilities and other 
necessities, researchers have found that in most areas of the country, 
families need about 200 percent of the poverty level to achieve 
``minimal economic self-sufficiency.'' Individuals and families are 
faced with a cost of living that continues to rise and an increasing 
gap between what low-wage workers earn and what is required to meet 
basic needs.
  In my State of Illinois, over 158,000 Illinois households experienced 
hunger in 2005. If we include households that have had to struggle to 
put food on the table or have had to skip meals to make sure the food 
would last through the week--that's 440,000 households in Illinois 
living with food insecurity--9 percent of Illinois households. These 
are working families who need more to lead healthy, happy lives.
  Fortunately, we have some programs in existence to offer hope. Since 
President Johnson started the war on poverty, we have documented that 
the Federal nutrition programs work to reduce hunger. When people are 
able to use Food Stamps, there are enough groceries to last through the 
week. When new moms are helped by WIC, they and their babies have 
enough milk and eggs and fruit. When senior citizens are near a 
Commodity Supplemental Food Program site, they can take home a box of 
food to fill the pantry AND buy their prescription drugs. Our school 
children can fill their stomachs and then focus on learning--because of 
the Federal school food program. In cases of emergency, like the

[[Page S4778]]

tragic occurrences of hurricanes, our Federal nutrition assistance 
programs have been there to assist families in need. These Federal food 
programs work, but more can be done.
  Last Congress, I introduced the Hunger Free Communities Act with 
Senators Lincoln, Smith and Lugar. The bill creates new grant programs 
that help communities make the most of the Federal nutrition programs 
and build on their successes.
  First, the bill makes grant money available to local groups that are 
working to eliminate hunger in their communities. Each day, soup 
kitchens serve meals, and food pantries give groceries, and volunteers 
collect food, make sandwiches, and deliver food. Our bill creates an 
anti-hunger grant program--the first of its kind--that asks communities 
to assess hunger and hunger relief at the local level. Grant money is 
available to help with that assessment or grant money can be used to 
help fill in the gaps that a local plan identifies.
  Second, we create a funding stream that food banks and soup kitchens 
can use to keep up their buildings and trucks and kitchen equipment. 
The response of the food bank network to the crisis after hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita was remarkable. Tons of food was donated, transported 
and delivered by thousands of volunteers from all over the country. But 
within days, America's Second Harvest recognized the food banks needed 
freezers, forklifts, delivery trucks and repairs to warehouses and 
equipment. My bill creates the only Federal funding stream specifically 
for the capital needs of local hunger relief efforts. Helping these 
organizations is especially important for those organizations in 
underserved areas and areas where rates of food insecurity, hunger, 
poverty, or unemployment are higher than the national average.
  Late last Congress, the Hunger Free Communities Act was passed by the 
Senate. I had hoped that there might be time for the House to act on it 
before the Session ended, but we ran out of time. This was, however, a 
small victory. It was a small step toward progress--a step that both 
Democrats and Republicans want to take for the health and well-being of 
our communities.
  There are still too many parents in this country who skip meals 
because there is not enough money in the family food budget for them 
and their children to eat every night. There are still too many babies 
and toddlers in America who are not getting the nutrition their minds 
and bodies need to develop to their fullest potential. There are too 
many seniors, and children, who go to bed hungry. In the richest Nation 
in the history of the world, that is unacceptable.
  Progress against hunger is possible, even with a war abroad and 
budget deficits at home. I am heartened by the 43 United States 
Senators who agreed with me and cosponsored the Hunger Free Communities 
Act last year. I am heartened by the support of the Illinois Coalition 
on Hunger, Bread for the World and America's Second Harvest. Congress 
will be reauthorizing many nutrition programs this year with the farm 
bill, and the Hunger Free Communities Act should be a part of that. I 
believe this bill can take a modest but meaningful step toward 
eliminating hunger in this country. We tried to make that first step 
when the bill passed the Senate late last year. We can do it again and 
should.
  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. 1172

       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 ``Hunger-
     Free Communities Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.

               TITLE I--NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO END HUNGER

Sec. 101. Hunger reports.

               TITLE II--STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY EFFORTS

Sec. 121. Hunger-free communities collaborative grants.
Sec. 122. Hunger-free communities infrastructure grants.
Sec. 123. Hunger-free communities training and technical assistance 
              grants.
Sec. 124. Report.
Sec. 125. Authorization of appropriations.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1)(A) at the 1996 World Food Summit, the United States, 
     along with 185 other countries, pledged to reduce the number 
     of undernourished people by half by 2015; and
       (B) as a result of that pledge, the Department of Health 
     and Human Services adopted the Healthy People 2010 goal to 
     cut food insecurity in half by 2010, and in doing so reduce 
     hunger;
       (2) national nutrition programs are among the fastest, most 
     direct ways to efficiently and effectively prevent hunger, 
     reduce food insecurity, and improve nutrition among the 
     populations targeted by a program;
       (3) in 2001, food banks, food pantries, soup kitchens, and 
     emergency shelters helped to feed more than 23,000,000 low-
     income people; and
       (4) community-based organizations and charities can help--
       (A) play an important role in preventing and reducing 
     hunger;
       (B) measure community food security;
       (C) develop and implement plans for improving food 
     security;
       (D) educate community leaders about the problems of and 
     solutions to hunger;
       (E) ensure that local nutrition programs are implemented 
     effectively; and
       (F) improve the connection of food insecure people to anti-
     hunger programs.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Domestic hunger goal.--The term ``domestic hunger 
     goal'' means--
       (A) the goal of reducing hunger in the United States to at 
     or below 2 percent by 2010; or
       (B) the goal of reducing food insecurity in the United 
     States to at or below 6 percent by 2010.
       (2) Emergency feeding organization.--The term ``emergency 
     feeding organization'' has the meaning given the term in 
     section 201A of the Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 
     U.S.C. 7501).
       (3) Food security.--The term ``food security'' means the 
     state in which an individual has access to enough food for an 
     active, healthy life.
       (4) Hunger-free communities goal.--The term ``hunger-free 
     communities goal'' means any of the 14 goals described in the 
     H. Con. Res. 302 (102nd Congress).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.

               TITLE I--NATIONAL COMMITMENT TO END HUNGER

     SEC. 101. HUNGER REPORTS.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) Timeline.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall conduct a study of 
     major matters relating to the problem of hunger in the United 
     States, as determined by the Secretary.
       (B) Update.--Not later than 5 years after the date on which 
     the study under subparagraph (A) is conducted, the Secretary 
     shall update the study.
       (2) Matters to be assessed.--The matters to be assessed by 
     the Secretary in the study and update under this section 
     shall include--
       (A) data on hunger and food insecurity in the United 
     States;
       (B) measures carried out during the previous year by 
     Federal, State, and local governments to achieve domestic 
     hunger goals and hunger-free communities goals;
       (C) measures that could be carried out by Federal, State, 
     and local governments to achieve domestic hunger goals and 
     hunger-free communities goals; and
       (D) the impact of hunger and household food insecurity on 
     obesity, in the context of poverty and food assistance 
     programs.
       (b) Recommendations.--The Secretary shall develop 
     recommendations on--
       (1) removing obstacles to achieving domestic hunger goals 
     and hunger-free communities goals; and
       (2) otherwise reducing domestic hunger.
       (c) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to the President 
     and Congress--
       (1) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, a report that contains--
       (A) a detailed statement of the results of the study, or 
     the most recent update to the study, conducted under 
     subsection (a)(1); and
       (B) the most recent recommendations of the Secretary under 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) not later than 5 years after the date of submission of 
     the report under paragraph (1), an update of the report.

               TITLE II--STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY EFFORTS

     SEC. 121. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES COLLABORATIVE GRANTS.

       (a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' means a public food program service 
     provider or a nonprofit organization, including but not 
     limited to an emergency feeding organization, that 
     demonstrates the organization has collaborated, or will 
     collaborate, with 1 or more local partner organizations to 
     achieve at least 1 hunger-free communities goal.
       (b) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 50 
     percent of any funds made

[[Page S4779]]

     available under section 125 to make grants to eligible 
     entities to pay the Federal share of the costs of an activity 
     described in subsection (d).
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out an activity under this section shall not exceed 
     80 percent.
       (3) Non-federal share.--
       (A) Calculation.--The non-Federal share of the cost of an 
     activity under this section may be provided in cash or in 
     kind, fairly evaluated, including facilities, equipment, or 
     services.
       (B) Sources.--Any entity may provide the non-Federal share 
     of the cost of an activity under this section through a State 
     government, a local government, or a private source.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--To receive a grant under this section, an 
     eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at the time and in the manner and accompanied by any 
     information the Secretary may require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) identify any activity described in subsection (d) that 
     the grant will be used to fund;
       (B) describe the means by which an activity identified 
     under subparagraph (A) will reduce hunger in the community of 
     the eligible entity;
       (C) list any partner organizations of the eligible entity 
     that will participate in an activity funded by the grant;
       (D) describe any agreement between a partner organization 
     and the eligible entity necessary to carry out an activity 
     funded by the grant; and
       (E) if an assessment described in subsection (d)(1) has 
     been performed, include--
       (i) a summary of that assessment; and
       (ii) information regarding the means by which the grant 
     will help reduce hunger in the community of the eligible 
     entity.
       (3) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities that--
       (A) demonstrate in the application of the eligible entity 
     that the eligible entity makes collaborative efforts to 
     reduce hunger in the community of the eligible entity; and
       (B)(i) serve a predominantly rural and geographically 
     underserved area;
       (ii) serve communities in which the rates of food 
     insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment are demonstrably 
     higher than national average rates;
       (iii) provide evidence of long-term efforts to reduce 
     hunger in the community;
       (iv) provide evidence of public support for the efforts of 
     the eligible entity; or
       (v) demonstrate in the application of the eligible entity a 
     commitment to achieving more than 1 hunger-free communities 
     goal.
       (d) Use of Funds.--
       (1) Assessment of hunger in the community.--
       (A) In general.--An eligible entity in a community that has 
     not performed an assessment described in subparagraph (B) may 
     use a grant received under this section to perform the 
     assessment for the community.
       (B) Assessment.--The assessment referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) shall include--
       (i) an analysis of the problem of hunger in the community 
     served by the eligible entity;
       (ii) an evaluation of any facility and any equipment used 
     to achieve a hunger-free communities goal in the community;
       (iii) an analysis of the effectiveness and extent of 
     service of existing nutrition programs and emergency feeding 
     organizations; and
       (iv) a plan to achieve any other hunger-free communities 
     goal in the community.
       (2) Activities.--An eligible entity in a community that has 
     submitted an assessment to the Secretary shall use a grant 
     received under this section for any fiscal year for 
     activities of the eligible entity, including--
       (A) meeting the immediate needs of people in the community 
     served by the eligible entity who experience hunger by--
       (i) distributing food;
       (ii) providing community outreach; or
       (iii) improving access to food as part of a comprehensive 
     service;
       (B) developing new resources and strategies to help reduce 
     hunger in the community;
       (C) establishing a program to achieve a hunger-free 
     communities goal in the community, including--
       (i) a program to prevent, monitor, and treat children in 
     the community experiencing hunger or poor nutrition; or
       (ii) a program to provide information to people in the 
     community on hunger, domestic hunger goals, and hunger-free 
     communities goals; and
       (D) establishing a program to provide food and nutrition 
     services as part of a coordinated community-based 
     comprehensive service.

     SEC. 122. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS.

       (a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' means an emergency feeding 
     organization (as defined in section 201A(4) of the Emergency 
     Food Assistance Act of 1983 (7 U.S.C. 7501(4))).
       (b) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 40 
     percent of any funds made available under section 125 to make 
     grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of the 
     costs of an activity described in subsection (d).
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out an activity under this section shall not exceed 
     80 percent.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--To receive a grant under this section, an 
     eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at the time and in the manner and accompanied by any 
     information the Secretary may require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) identify any activity described in subsection (d) that 
     the grant will be used to fund; and
       (B) describe the means by which an activity identified 
     under subparagraph (A) will reduce hunger in the community of 
     the eligible entity.
       (3) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities the 
     applications of which demonstrate 2 or more of the following:
       (A) The eligible entity serves a predominantly rural and 
     geographically underserved area.
       (B) The eligible entity serves a community in which the 
     rates of food insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment 
     are demonstrably higher than national average rates.
       (C) The eligible entity serves a community that has carried 
     out long-term efforts to reduce hunger in the community.
       (D) The eligible entity serves a community that provides 
     public support for the efforts of the eligible entity.
       (E) The eligible entity is committed to achieving more than 
     1 hunger-free communities goal.
       (d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant 
     received under this section for any fiscal year to carry out 
     activities of the eligible entity, including--
       (1) constructing, expanding, or repairing a facility or 
     equipment to support hunger relief agencies in the community;
       (2) assisting an emergency feeding organization in the 
     community in obtaining locally-produced produce and protein 
     products; and
       (3) assisting an emergency feeding organization in the 
     community to process and serve wild game.

     SEC. 123. HUNGER-FREE COMMUNITIES TRAINING AND TECHNICAL 
                   ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

       (a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--In this section, the 
     term ``eligible entity'' means a national or regional 
     nonprofit organization that carries out an activity described 
     in subsection (d).
       (b) Program Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall use not more than 10 
     percent of any funds made available under section 125 to make 
     grants to eligible entities to pay the Federal share of the 
     costs of an activity described in subsection (d).
       (2) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     carrying out an activity under this section shall not exceed 
     80 percent.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--To receive a grant under this section, an 
     eligible entity shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at the time and in the manner and accompanied by any 
     information the Secretary may require.
       (2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) demonstrate that the eligible entity does not operate 
     for profit;
       (B) describe any national or regional training program 
     carried out by the eligible entity, including a description 
     of each region served by the eligible entity;
       (C) describe any national or regional technical assistance 
     provided by the eligible entity, including a description of 
     each region served by the eligible entity; and
       (D) describe the means by which each organization served by 
     the eligible entity--
       (i) works to achieve a domestic hunger goal;
       (ii) works to achieve a hunger-free communities goal; or
       (iii) used a grant received by the organization under 
     section 121 or 122.
       (3) Priority.--In making grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give priority to eligible entities the 
     applications of which demonstrate 2 or more of the following:
       (A) The eligible entity serves a predominantly rural and 
     geographically underserved area.
       (B) The eligible entity serves a region in which the rates 
     of food insecurity, hunger, poverty, or unemployment are 
     demonstrably higher than national average rates.
       (C) The eligible entity serves a region that has carried 
     out long-term efforts to reduce hunger in the region.
       (D) The eligible entity serves a region that provides 
     public support for the efforts of the eligible entity.
       (E) The eligible entity is committed to achieving more than 
     1 hunger-free communities goal.
       (d) Use of Funds.--An eligible entity shall use a grant 
     received under this section for any fiscal year to carry out 
     national or regional training and technical assistance for 
     organizations that--
       (1) work to achieve a domestic hunger goal;
       (2) work to achieve a hunger-free communities goal; or
       (3) receive a grant under section 121 or 122.

     SEC. 124. REPORT.

       Not later than September 30, 2013, the Secretary shall 
     submit to Congress a report describing--

[[Page S4780]]

       (1) each grant made under this title, including--
       (A) a description of any activity funded by such a grant; 
     and
       (B) the degree of success of each activity funded by such a 
     grant in achieving hunger-free communities goals; and
       (2) the degree of success of all activities funded by 
     grants under this title in achieving domestic hunger goals.

     SEC. 125. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     title $50,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. Mikulski):
  S. 1174. A bill to amend the Natural Gas Act to modify a provision 
relating to the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of 
liquefied natural gas terminals; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to 
restore the authority of State and local governments to protect the 
environment and ensure public safety with respect to the siting of 
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals within their States. This measure 
would strike a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which gave 
the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC) power to preempt State 
and local concerns in the siting, construction and operation of LNG 
facilities.
  In recent years, the LNG industry has proposed building dozens of new 
LNG terminals throughout the United States, as LNG's share of the 
natural gas market continues to grow rapidly. Many of these terminals 
are being planned near populated areas or in environmentally sensitive 
coastal areas. As a highly hazardous and combustible fuel source, LNG 
poses serious safety concerns to local communities from potential 
accidents, as well as terrorism risks. Richard Clarke, a former Bush 
Administration Counter Terrorism official, noted that LNG terminals and 
tankers present ``especially attractive targets'' to terrorists. 
Experts have identified anumber of potentially catastrophic events that 
could arise from an LNG release, including pool fires--an extremely 
intense fire that cannot be extinguished and can spread over 
considerable distance, flammable vapor clouds that may drift some 
distance from the spill site, and flameless explosions. According to 
the Congressional Research Service, there have been approximately 13 
serious accidents at LNG plants around the world over the past six 
decades, including three accidents which caused fatalities--two in 
Algeria in 1977 and 2004 respectively, and another at Cove Point, MD; 
in 1979, which killed one worker and caused some $3 million in damages.
  In the State of Maryland, which is already home to one of six 
operating LNG terminals in the United States, AES Sparrows Point LNG, 
LLC and Mid-Atlantic Express, LLC has proposed building a new terminal 
near a densely-populated area of Baltimore. Our area Congressional 
Delegation, Governor O'Malley, Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith and 
other local officials and community leaders believe this project poses 
unacceptable public safety, economic and environmental risks and does 
not serve the public interest. Yet, under current law, the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission now has exclusive authority to approve 
onshore LNG terminal siting applications. While the law requires FERC 
to consult with State and local governments regarding safety concerns, 
they have no role in the final decision. Moreover, while the law 
permits states to conduct safety inspections of LNG terminals, they do 
not have the authority to require any safety precautions or to take 
enforcement actions if they discover problems at a facility during a 
safety inspection.
  It is vital, in my opinion, that State and local authorities and the 
public have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-
making process about the siting of these plants. These terminals have 
the potential for tremendous impacts on the communities in which they 
would be constructed and would operate. The measure I am introducing 
today seeks to restore that authority and give Governors the same veto 
powers for onshore LNG terminal proposals as they currently exercise 
for offshore terminal proposals under the Deepwater Port Act. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this measure.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Brownback):
  S. 1175. A bill to end the use of child soldiers in hostilities 
around the world, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign 
Relations.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an issue of 
children's rights and human rights: the recruitment and use of child 
soldiers.
  Hundreds of thousands of children in the world today serve as child 
soldiers, boys and girls alike.
  They serve as combatants, porters, human mine detectors and sex 
slaves.
  Their health and lives are endangered and their childhoods are 
sacrificed.
  The bulk of these children are captured, recruited, or sold into 
service with rebel groups such as the infamous Lord's Resistance Army 
in Uganda.
  But some serve with uniformed armed forces or government-supported 
paramilitaries or militias.
  Even more troubling, children have served as child soldiers for 
governments that receive U.S. military assistance.
  Today, Senator Sam Brownback and I are introducing legislation 
addressing this issue.
  Our bill, the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, will ensure that U.S. 
taxpayer dollars are not used to support foreign militaries known to 
recruit or use child soldiers in government armed forces or government-
supported militaries.
  U.S. military assistance can continue under this bill, but it will be 
used to remedy the problem by helping countries successfully demobilize 
their child soldiers and professionalize their forces.
  Under the terms of this bill, Foreign Military Assistance and other 
defense-related aid would be limited if countries are clearly 
identified in the State Department's Human Rights report as recruiting 
or using child soldiers.
  Military assistance to these countries would be limited to supporting 
the professionalization of their forces until they eliminate the use of 
child soldiers.
  If years of abuse continue, then U.S. assistance would eventually be 
eliminated.
  In all circumstances, the President would be able to waive these 
rules if he deems that it is in the national interest.
  What do we mean by professionalization?
  We mean creating regular militaries which conform to long-standing 
international norms, such as not using children, respecting human 
rights, and functioning as professional armies.
  This bill can only affect governmental or government sanctioned 
military and paramilitary organizations.
  But that is where we have leverage through our foreign military 
assistance programs and we will use whatever leverage we have to 
address this heinous phenomenon.
  In the last year, many of us have read the haunting memoir of Ishmael 
Beah, A LONG WAY GONE: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier.
  Beah is all of 26: that might seem too young to write a memoir, but 
sadly, his youth was stolen from him many years ago.
  Beah grew up in war-torn Sierra Leone. He was born in 1980.
  Eleven years later, civil war broke out, killing tens of thousands of 
people and driving millions from their homes.
  At the age of twelve, he fled attacking rebels.
  Beah's parents and his two brothers were among those killed.
  By thirteen, he'd been picked up by the government army, but that was 
no refuge.
  Fleeing the rebels who had killed so many of his friends and family, 
Beah wound up in a village run by government troops.
  He wrote of this moment in his life, ``In the beginning it seemed we 
had found safety the smiles on people's faces assured us that there was 
nothing to worry about anymore. All that darkened the mood of the 
village was the sight of orphaned children. There were over thirty boys 
between the ages of six and sixteen. I was one of them. Apart from 
this, there were no indications that our childhood was threatened, much 
less that we would be robbed of it.''
  That was exactly what was happening, though.
  In Beah's first battle he watched his eleven-year old tent-mate bleed 
out before his very eyes.
  He writes of this awful day, ``My face, my hands, my shirt and gun 
were covered with blood. I raised the gun and pulled the trigger, and I 
killed a man. Suddenly, as if someone was

[[Page S4781]]

shooting them inside my brain, all the massacres I had seen since the 
day I was touched by war began flashing in my head. Every time I 
stopped shooting to change magazines and saw my two young lifeless 
friends, I angrily pointed my gun into the swamp and killed more 
people.''
  That was at 13. Thirteen--- an age for junior high soccer games, not 
for going to war.
  Ultimately during his time in the government army, Beah says he 
killed ``too many people to count.''
  In 1998 he fled and in 1999 he was able to come to New York.
  Returning to civilization, according to Beah, was actually harder 
than the act of becoming a child soldier because ``dehumanizing 
children is a relatively easy task.''
  Thank God, Sierra Leone's civil war is over.
  But too many children in the world continue to be forced to serve as 
child soldiers.
  Ensuring that countries professionalize their militaries and help 
their child soldiers make the transition back into civil society is a 
humanitarian issue but also in the best interest for our own armed 
forces.
  We do not want American soldiers in a position where they have to 
return fire on children.
  Delay in such a moment could cost an American soldier his life, but 
think also of the psychic costs of having to kill a child in battle.
  We want our troops to avoid such a situation and we want to ensure 
that American taxpayer dollars are used as they should be: for 
professionalizing the militaries of countries whom we are assisting.
  It is not enough for child soldiers simply to be demobilized: U.S.-
funded programs assist in the rehabilitation of child soldiers and the 
reintegration of these young people back into civilian life.
  Some of these child veterans of war have witnessed or been forced to 
do terrible things.
  Many of the girls have been victims of rape and may be coming back 
into civilian life with their own children.
  I strongly support programs to provide psychological services, 
educational and vocational training, and other assistance to these 
traumatized young people.
  I also support efforts to bring to justice those rebel leaders and 
others who kidnap children for use as child soldiers.
  The use of child soldiers represents a basic issue of human rights.
  For that reason, next week Senator Coburn, who is the ranking member 
on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, and I will 
be holding a Subcommittee hearing on Child Soldiers and the Law.
  In this hearing, we will explore the persistent use of child soldiers 
despite the fact that this practice is widely acknowledged as a war 
crime.
  Is this persistent crime in part a failure of enforcement?
  Are reforms needed in U.S. law to criminalize this terrible practice?
  How is this issue addressed under our immigration laws?
  Expert witnesses from non-governmental and faith-based organizations 
will speak to these issues in our hearing next Tuesday.
  So too will Ishmael Beah, whose words vividly capture the horror of 
children at war.
  I am introducing this bill and our subcommittee is holding this 
hearing as progressive steps to remedy a terrible and persistent 
problem.
  Here in Washington, on the floor of the Senate, it is hard to imagine 
the atrocities that children endure every day, as combatants, as sex 
slaves, and as forced labor for militaries and paramilitaries.
  But those atrocities do continue.
  At the least we should ensure that U.S. assistance goes to remedy the 
problem and that it is never used to prolong it.
  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. 1175

       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 ``Child Soldier Prevention Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) According to the September 7, 2005, report to the 
     General Assembly of the United Nations by the Special 
     Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and 
     Armed Conflict, ``In the last decade, two million children 
     have been killed in situations of armed conflict, while six 
     million children have been permanently disabled or injured. 
     Over 250,000 children continue to be exploited as child 
     soldiers and tens of thousands of girls are being subjected 
     to rape and other forms of sexual violence.''.
       (2) According to the Center for Emerging Threats and 
     Opportunities (CETO), Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory, 
     ``The Child Soldier Phenomenon has become a post-Cold War 
     epidemic that has proliferated to every continent with the 
     exception of Antarctica and Australia.''.
       (3) Many of the children currently serving in armed forces 
     or paramilitaries were forcibly conscripted through 
     kidnapping or coercion, a form of human trafficking, while 
     others joined military units due to economic necessity, to 
     avenge the loss of a family member, or for their own personal 
     safety.
       (4) Some military and militia commanders force child 
     soldiers to commit gruesome acts of ritual killings or 
     torture, including acts of violence against other children.
       (5) Many female child soldiers face the additional 
     psychological and physical horrors of rape and sexual abuse, 
     enslavement for sexual purposes by militia commanders, and 
     severe social stigma should they return home.
       (6) Some military and militia commanders target children 
     for recruitment because of their psychological immaturity and 
     vulnerability to manipulation and indoctrination. Children 
     are often separated from their families in order to foster 
     dependence on military units and leaders. Consequently, many 
     of these children suffer from deep trauma and are in need of 
     psychological counseling and rehabilitation.
       (7) Child soldiers are exposed to hazardous conditions and 
     are at risk of physical injury and disability, psychological 
     trauma, sexually transmitted diseases, respiratory and skin 
     infections, and often death.
       (8) On May 25, 2000, the United Nations adopted and opened 
     for signature, ratification, and accession the Optional 
     Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the 
     Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Optional Protocol''), which establishes 
     18 as the minimum age for conscription or forced recruitment 
     and requires states party to ensure that members of their 
     armed forces under the age of 18 do not take a direct part in 
     hostilities.
       (9) On June 18, 2002, the Senate unanimously approved the 
     resolution advising and consenting to the ratification of the 
     Optional Protocol.
       (10) On December 23, 2002, the United States presented the 
     ratified optional protocol to the United Nations.
       (11) More than 110 governments worldwide have ratified the 
     optional protocol, establishing a clear international norm 
     concerning the use of children in combat.
       (12) On December 2, 1999, the United States ratified 
     International Labour Convention 182, the Convention 
     concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the 
     Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour, which 
     includes the use of child soldiers among the worst forms of 
     child labor.
       (13) On October 7, 2005, the Senate gave its advice and 
     consent to the ratification of the Protocol to Prevent, 
     Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women 
     and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention 
     Against Transnational Organized Crime.
       (14) It is in the national security interest of the United 
     States to reduce the chances that members of the United 
     States Armed Forces will be forced to encounter children in 
     combat situations.
       (15) Section 502B(a)(3) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2304(a)(3)) provides that ``the President is 
     directed to formulate and conduct international security 
     assistance programs of the United States in a manner which 
     will promote and advance human rights and avoid 
     identification of the United States, through such programs, 
     with governments which deny to their people internationally 
     recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, in 
     violation of international law or in contravention of the 
     policy of the United States as expressed in this section or 
     otherwise''.

     SEC. 3. CHILD SOLDIER DEFINED.

       In this Act, consistent with the provisions of the Optional 
     Protocol, the term ``child soldier''--
       (1) means--
       (A) any person under age 18 who takes a direct part in 
     hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces;
       (B) any person under age 18 who has been compulsorily 
     recruited into governmental armed forces;
       (C) any person under age 16 voluntarily recruited into 
     governmental armed forces; and
       (D) any person under age 18 recruited or used in 
     hostilities by armed forces distinct from the armed forces of 
     a state; and
       (2) includes any person described in subparagraphs (B), 
     (C), and (D) of paragraph (1) who is serving in any capacity, 
     including in

[[Page S4782]]

     a support role such as a cook, porter, messenger, medic, 
     guard, or sex slave.

     SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of Congress--
       (1) to condemn the conscription, forced recruitment or use 
     of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other 
     organizations in hostilities;
       (2) that the United States Government should support and, 
     where practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold 
     international standards designed to end this abuse of human 
     rights;
       (3) that the United States Government should expand ongoing 
     services to rehabilitate recovered child soldiers and to 
     reintegrate them back into their communities by--
       (A) offering ongoing psychological services to help victims 
     recover from their trauma and relearn how to deal with others 
     in nonviolent ways such that they are no longer a danger to 
     their community;
       (B) facilitating reconciliation with their communities 
     through negotiations with traditional leaders and elders to 
     enable recovered abductees to resume normal lives in their 
     communities; and
       (C) providing educational and vocational assistance;
       (4) that the United States should work with the 
     international community, including, where appropriate, third 
     country governments, nongovernmental organizations, faith-
     based organizations, United Nations agencies, local 
     governments, labor unions, and private enterprise--
       (A) on efforts to bring to justice rebel organizations that 
     kidnap children for use as child soldiers, including the 
     Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, Fuerzas Armadas 
     Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), and Liberation Tigers of 
     Tamil Eelam (LTTE), including, where feasible, by arresting 
     the leaders of such groups; and
       (B) on efforts to recover those children who have been 
     abducted and to assist them in their rehabilitation and 
     reintegration into communities;
       (5) that the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Labor, 
     and the Secretary of Defense should coordinate programs to 
     achieve the goals specified in paragraph (3), and in 
     countries where the use of child soldiers is an issue, 
     whether or not it is supported or sanctioned by the 
     governments of such countries, United States diplomatic 
     missions should include in their mission program plans a 
     strategy to achieve the goals specified in such paragraph;
       (6) that United States diplomatic missions in countries in 
     which governments use or tolerate child soldiers should 
     develop, as part of annual program planning, strategies to 
     promote efforts to end this abuse of human rights; and
       (7) that, in allocating or recommending the allocation of 
     funds or recommending candidates for programs and grants 
     funded by the United States Government, United States 
     diplomatic missions should give particular consideration to 
     those programs and candidates deemed to promote the end to 
     this abuse of human rights.

     SEC. 5. PROHIBITION.

       (a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b), (c), and (d), 
     none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available 
     for international military education and training, foreign 
     military financing, foreign military sales, direct commercial 
     sales, or excess Defense articles by the Foreign Operations, 
     Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 
     2006 (Public Law 109-102) or any other Act making 
     appropriations for foreign operations, export financing, and 
     related programs may be obligated or otherwise made available 
     to the government of a country that is clearly identified by 
     the Department of State in the Department of State's most 
     recent Country Reports on Human Rights Practices as having 
     governmental armed forces or government supported armed 
     groups, including paramilitaries, militias, or civil defense 
     forces, that recruit or use child soldiers.
       (b) Notification to Countries in Violation of the Standards 
     of This Act.--The Secretary of State shall formally notify 
     any government identified pursuant to subsection (a).
       (c) National Interest Waiver.--
       (1) Waiver.--The President may waive the application to a 
     country of the prohibition in subsection (a) if the President 
     determines that such waiver is in the interest of the United 
     States.
       (2) Publication and notification.--The President shall 
     publish each waiver granted under paragraph (1) in the 
     Federal Register and shall notify the Committee on Foreign 
     Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate 
     and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives of each such 
     waiver, including the justification for the waiver, in 
     accordance with the regular notification procedures of such 
     Committees.
       (d) Reinstatement of Assistance.--The President may provide 
     to a country assistance otherwise prohibited under subsection 
     (a) upon certifying to Congress that the government of such 
     country--
       (1) has implemented effective measures to come into 
     compliance with the standards of this Act; and
       (2) has implemented effective policies and mechanisms to 
     prohibit and prevent future use of child soldiers and to 
     ensure that no children are recruited, conscripted, or 
     otherwise compelled to serve as child soldiers.
       (e) Exception for Programs Directly Related to Addressing 
     the Problem of Child Soldiers or Professionalization of the 
     Military.--
       (1) In general.--The President may provide to a country 
     assistance for international military education and training 
     otherwise prohibited under subsection (a) upon certifying to 
     Congress that--
       (A) the government of such country is implementing 
     effective measures to demobilize child soldiers in its forces 
     or in government supported paramilitaries and to provide 
     demobilization, rehabilitation, and reintegration assistance 
     to those former child soldiers; and
       (B) the assistance provided by the United States Government 
     to the government of such country will go to programs that 
     will directly support professionalization of the military.
       (2) Limitation.--The exception under paragraph (1) may not 
     remain in effect for more than 2 years following the date of 
     notification specified in section 5(b).

     SEC. 6. REPORTS.

       (a) Preparation of Reports Regarding Child Soldiers.--
     United States missions abroad shall thoroughly investigate 
     reports of the use of child soldiers.
       (b) Information for Annual Human Rights Reports.--In 
     preparing those portions of the Human Rights Reports that 
     relate to child soldiers, the Secretary of State shall ensure 
     that such reports shall include a description of the use of 
     child soldiers in each foreign country, including--
       (1) trends toward improvement in such country of the status 
     of child soldiers or the continued or increased tolerance of 
     such practices; and
       (2) the role of the government of such country in engaging 
     in or tolerating the use of child soldiers.
       (c) Inclusion of Information on Violations.--When the 
     Secretary of State determines that a government has violated 
     the standards of this Act, the Secretary shall clearly 
     indicate that fact in the relevant Annual Human Rights 
     Report.
       (d) Letter to Congress.--Not later than June 15 of each 
     year for 10 years following the enactment of this Act, the 
     President shall submit to the Committee on Foreign Relations 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives--
       (1) a list of the countries receiving notification that 
     they are in violation of the standards of this Act;
       (2) a list of any waivers or exceptions exercised under 
     this Act;
       (3) justification for those waivers and exceptions; and
       (4) a description of any assistance provided pursuant to 
     this Act.

     SEC. 7. REPORT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ACT.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the President shall submit to the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee 
     on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report 
     setting forth a strategy for achieving the policy objectives 
     of this Act, including a description of an effective 
     mechanism for coordination of United States Government 
     efforts to implement this strategy.

     SEC. 8. TRAINING FOR FOREIGN SERVICE OFFICERS.

       Section 708 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 
     4028) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(c) The Secretary of State, with the assistance of other 
     relevant officials, shall establish as part of the standard 
     training provided after January 1, 2008, for officers of the 
     Service, including chiefs of mission, instruction on matters 
     related to child soldiers and the substance of the Child 
     Soldier Prevention Act of 2007.''.

     SEC. 9. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICABILITY.

       This Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act and shall apply to funds obligated 
     after such effective date.

                          ____________________