[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 86 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6849-S6897]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. SUNUNU (for himself and Mr. Johnson):
S. 40. A bill to authorize the issuance of Federal charters and
licenses for carrying on the sale, solicitation, negotiation, and
underwriting of insurance or any other insurance operations, to provide
a comprehensive system for the Federal regulation and supervision of
national insurers and national agencies, to provide for policyholder
protections in the event of an insolvency or the impairment of a
national insurer, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation
that will bring our Nation's insurance regulatory system into the 21st
century by providing uniformity, predictability, and greater efficiency
to the way insurance is regulated in this country.
The National Insurance Act of 2007, which builds upon legislation
Senator Johnson and I first introduced last year, provides for an
optional Federal charter that would offer insurers the choice of being
regulated under a new Commissioner of National Insurance or under the
continued jurisdiction of the States.
I am pleased that Senator Johnson once again joins me as an original
cosponsor of this bill. Since we introduced the initial National
Insurance Act just over a year ago, momentum has been building for the
reforms called for under our legislation and the question has become
not whether an optional Federal charter should be implemented, but
when.
In an increasingly global financial services industry, numerous
studies have called for changes to the manner in which insurance is
regulated in the United States as one of the ways to make our financial
services sector more competitive in the worldwide economy.
The bipartisan Bloomberg-Schumer report on financial services
industry competitiveness, for example, states, ``One priority, in the
context of enhancing competitiveness for the entire financial services
sector and improving responsiveness and customer service, should be an
optional federal charter for insurance, based on market principles for
serving customers.''
Furthermore, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Mega-Catastrophes states,
``It (an optional federal charter for insurance) would lead to . . .
consistent regulation of insurer safety and soundness, and the
elimination of duplicative regulation and supervision . . .In addition,
an OFC should promote greater competition that would benefit
policyholders.''
In addition to the study recommendations, a number of other
indicators suggest that the time is right for reform. The coalition in
support of the bill continues to grow and the general acceptance of the
concept of reform we have proposed is also growing.
The arguments against the bill are increasingly seen for what they
are: parochial in nature, rather than forward-looking and in the best
interests of consumers, our financial services sector, and the strength
of our overall economy.
In 1999, Congress passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act--broad
legislation that modernized the rules that regulate banks and
securities firms and provided a foundation for the financial services
industry to become more integrated, market-oriented, technologically
advanced, and global in nature. Since then, consumers have
benefited from improved industry competition and innovation, greater
choice of financial products, and more efficient delivery of services.
The insurance industry, however, has not enjoyed the same dynamic
marketplace within the global economy. Long subject to a patchwork of
State regulations, the sector's menu of available services is not as
robust as it could be. An inefficient regulatory system spread across
more than 50 different jurisdictions imposes direct and indirect costs
on insurers in the form of higher compliance fees associated with non-
uniform regulations and delayed market entry for new products from
onerous approval barriers.
With advances in technology, insurance is increasingly a global
product that cries out for a more consistent and efficient regulatory
environment that allows new products to be brought to market in a much
quicker fashion than the current system often allows. Under the State
regulatory regime new product launches are consistently delayed up to 2
years while they await the approval of an individual State regulator.
A more uniform regulatory environment, mirroring the highly
successful dual banking system, should substantially improve the
climate in several critical ways for those who buy, sell and underwrite
insurance, while also providing superior consumer protection.
As the Bloomberg-Schumer report puts it, our bill would allow best-
in-breed regulations to ``rise to the top'' and become national
standards. A division of consumer protection, as created by the
regulator, would oversee strict regulations and guard against unfair
and deceptive practices by insurers and agents for the advertising,
sale and administration of products. A division of insurance fraud,
also created under the bill, would make insurance fraud a Federal
crime.
While taking these cautionary steps to protect consumers, the bill
does not, however, permit the Federal regulator to set rates or price
controls for insurance. Instead, the National Insurance Act
appropriately relies on competitive pricing within the marketplace.
Finally, the Office of National Insurance would be able to fill a
vacuum and provide true national regulatory expertise and guidance on a
number of issues Congress is legislating on that affect policyholders,
the health of the insurance industry, and the overall economy.
The only real substantive change to this year's bill in comparison
with the one introduced last year is that our updated legislation
includes language that would add surplus lines of insurance as a type
of insurance that a person with a Federal producer's license would be
authorized to sell under the Federal charter program.
Other technical and clarifying changes were made, but by and large
this is last year's bill, with its spirit and purpose intact.
Former New York Insurance Commissioner, George Miller, who founded
the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, NAIC made the
following statement in 1871: ``The Commissioners are now fully prepared
to go before their various legislative committees with recommendations
for a system of insurance law which shall be the same in all States,
not reciprocal but identical, not retaliatory, but uniform.
It's now been over 135 years since that statement was made, and
unfortunately we are not much closer to Mr. Miller's goal.
In the months ahead, however, we look forward to making substantial
progress on this legislation as we build on the momentum to modernize
this country's insurance regulatory system and do what the State system
has failed to do for over 135 years.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1472. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to create
a Bureau of Reclamation partnership with the North Bay Water Reuse
Authority and other regional partners to achieve objectives relating to
water supply, water quality, and environmental restoration; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the
North Bay Water Reuse Program Act of 2007, together with my colleague
Senator Boxer. This legislation authorizes Federal participation in a
regional water reuse project that is the first of its kind in Northern
California, and model for the West.
The program will allow urban water agencies to take treated
wastewater now discharged into the sensitive bay-delta ecosystem and
put it to productive use on water-short agricultural lands and
environmentally valuable wetlands. It is an innovative ``win-win''
solution that will protect the environment as well as meet the future
water needs of urban and agricultural
[[Page S6850]]
water users in the North Bay region of California.
Agricultural producers in the North Bay region are facing, and will
continue to encounter, major water shortages. At the same time, as
regulations continue to restrict and/or eliminate wastewater discharge,
many communities in the North Bay region will face challenges as they
try to determine the best way to discharge their treated wastewater.
The North Bay Water Reuse Program will address both problems and
enhance the ecosystem of the San Francisco Bay. Specifically, the
program will distribute reclaimed water through a conveyance system and
deliver it to agricultural growers, promising a permanent and dedicated
supply of about 30,000 acre-feet of water per year.
The use of reclaimed water for irrigation will reduce the demand on
both surface and groundwater supplies, and thus improve instream flows
for riparian habitat and fisheries recovery. Furthermore, in the off-
season when irrigation demand is diminished, the reclaimed water will
be used to increase surface water flows for the restoration of
wetlands, creating habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wetland
species.
Most notably, this program grew from a collaboration of the three
major stakeholders in the region that vie for the same water. It is
significant that the program is supported by the local governments in
three counties, Napa, Sonoma and Marin Counties; agricultural
organizations, such as the Napa and Sonoma County Farm Bureaus, the
Carneros Quality Alliance, the Winegrape Growers of Napa County, the
Napa Vintners Association, the North Bay Agriculture Alliance; and
environmental organizations, such as The Bay Institute.
Thus, the North Bay Water Reuse Program brings stakeholders that are
usually at odds with one another to the table to find a solution that
is beneficial to all.
Finally, I would like to note the energy benefits of this project.
The Sonoma Valley treatment plant, installing solar panels that will
generate 40 percent of its energy needs. Another partner in the
program, Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, generates 90 percent of
its operating energy using solar panels.
The North Bay Water Reuse Program will allow vineyard managers to
cease or significantly reduce their use of gas and electric powered
pumps that currently deliver irrigation water. The program proponents
expect to see a net reduction of overall energy use for regional
irrigation operations, as well as a net reduction in the emissions of
carbon dioxide from irrigation operations.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1472
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 ``North Bay Water Reuse
Program Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Eligible entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
member agency of the North Bay Water Reuse Authority of the
State located in the North San Pablo Bay watershed in--
(A) Marin County;
(B) Napa County;
(C) Solano County; or
(D) Sonoma County.
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of
California.
(4) Water reclamation and reuse project.--The term ``water
reclamation and reuse project'' means a project carried out
by the Secretary and an eligible entity in the North San
Pablo Bay watershed relating to--
(A) water quality improvement;
(B) wastewater treatment;
(C) water reclamation and reuse;
(D) groundwater recharge and protection;
(E) surface water augmentation; or
(F) other related improvements.
SEC. 3. NORTH BAY WATER REUSE PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, acting through a
cooperative agreement with the State or a subdivision of a
State, may offer to enter into cooperative agreements with
eligible entities for the planning, design, and construction
of water reclamation and reuse projects.
(b) Coordination With Other Federal Agencies.--In carrying
out this section, the Secretary and the eligible entity
shall, to the maximum extent practicable, use the design work
and environmental evaluations initiated by--
(1) non-Federal entities; and
(2) the Corps of Engineers in the San Pablo Bay Watershed
of the State.
(c) Cooperative Agreement.--
(1) Requirements.--A cooperative agreement entered into
under paragraph (1) shall, at a minimum, specify the
responsibilities of the Secretary and the eligible entity
with respect to--
(A) ensuring that the cost-share requirements established
by subsection (e) are met;
(B) completing--
(i) a needs assessment for the water reclamation and reuse
project; and
(ii) the planning and final design of the water reclamation
and reuse project;
(C) any environmental compliance activity required for the
water reclamation and reuse project;
(D) the construction of facilities for the water
reclamation and reuse project; and
(E) administrating any contract relating to the
construction of the water reclamation and reuse project.
(2) Phased project.--
(A) In general.--A cooperative agreement described in
paragraph (1) shall require that any water reclamation and
reuse project carried out under this section shall consist of
2 phases.
(B) First phase.--During the first phase, the Secretary and
an eligible entity shall complete the planning, design, and
construction of the main treatment and main conveyance system
of the water reclamation and reuse project.
(C) Second phase.--During the second phase, the Secretary
and an eligible entity shall complete the planning, design,
and construction of the sub-regional distribution systems of
the water reclamation and reuse project.
(d) Financial Assistance.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide financial and
technical assistance to an eligible entity to assist in
planning, designing, conducting related preconstruction
activities for, and constructing a water reclamation and
reuse project.
(2) Use.--Any financial assistance provided under paragraph
(1) shall be obligated and expended only in accordance with a
cooperative agreement entered into under this section.
(e) Cost-Sharing Requirement.--
(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of the total cost of
any activity or construction carried out using amounts made
available under this section shall be not more than 25
percent of the total cost of a water reclamation and reuse
project.
(2) Form of non-federal share.--The non-Federal share may
be in the form of any in-kind services that the Secretary
determines would contribute substantially toward the
completion of the water reclamation and reuse project,
including--
(A) reasonable costs incurred by the eligible entity
relating to the planning, design, and construction of the
water reclamation and reuse project; and
(B) the fair-market value of land that is--
(i) used for planning, design, and construction of the
water reclamation and reuse project facilities; and
(ii) owned by an eligible entity.
(f) Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs.--
(1) In general.--The eligible entity shall be responsible
for the annual operation, maintenance, and replacement costs
associated with the water reclamation and reuse project.
(2) Operation, maintenance, and replacement plan.--The
eligible entity, in consultation with the Secretary, shall
develop an operation, maintenance, and replacement plan for
the water reclamation and reuse project.
(g) Effect.--Nothing in this Act--
(1) affects or preempts--
(A) State water law; or
(B) an interstate compact relating to the allocation of
water; or
(2) confers on any non-Federal entity the ability to
exercise any Federal right to--
(A) the water of a stream; or
(B) any groundwater resource.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated for the Federal share of the total cost of
the first phase of water reclamation and reuse projects
carried out under this Act, an amount not to exceed 25
percent of the total cost of those reclamation and reuse
projects or $25,000,000, whichever is less, to remain
available until expended.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1473. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation, to enter into a cooperative
agreement with the Madera Irrigation District for purposes of
supporting the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Madera
Water Supply Enhancement Act. This legislation authorizes the Bureau of
Reclamation, Bureau, to participate in the design and construction of
the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project, project, that is essential
to
[[Page S6851]]
improving the water supply in the Madera Irrigation District, MID, in
Madera County, CA, and in California's Central Valley.
Representative George Radanovich has introduced companion legislation
to this bill in the House, and I look forward to working with him to
get this bill enacted.
Agriculture is a multibillion enterprise in California, which
produces a significant portion of the Nation's food supply. To secure
this food supply, water is essential. When constructed, the project
will have the capacity to store up to 250,000 acre-feet of water and
move up to 55,000 acre feet in or out of storage each year.
With increasing demands on limited water supply, the project will
enable water users to store excess wet year water supply and this
stored water can then be used during dry years to meet demand. To
ensure the viability of the groundwater table and address overdraft
problems, 10 percent of the water placed in storage would be left in
the ground to replenish the aquifer over time.
This Project is also a useful complement to efforts to restore the
San Joaquin River. Restoring water to the San Joaquin River may reduce
the water supply available to agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley by
up to 165,000 acre feet per year.
It is very important to me to do what I can to help make up this
water deficit. The Madera Water Bank is one project that can help, and
I will be looking at it and other projects closely to prioritize
limited Federal appropriations to address this important need.
MID, the local agency that will build, own and manage the project has
already made a major financial commitment to making the water bank a
reality. MID has spent $37.5 million to purchase the nearly 14,000 acre
Madera Ranch, which will be the site of the water bank, and millions
more on studies. This land is ideal for storing water in the aquifer.
Over 11,000 acres of the ranch also constitute valuable habitat for
numerous species and contain large sections of the region's native
grasslands that will be preserved.
The Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the
predecessor legislation, H.R. 3897, which passed the House of
Representatives in the 109th Congress. As a result of that hearing, two
changes were made to the legislation.
First, the total cost of the project is capped at $90 million. Under
the legislation, the maximum Federal contribution will be $22.5 million
or 25 percent of the total cost of the project, whichever is less. This
change provides certainty and limits the Federal Government's financial
exposure in supporting this project.
The second change to last year's legislation is the decision to
declare the project ``feasible'' without further study. The reason for
this approach relates to the project's unusual history.
The feasibility of constructing a water bank on the Madera Ranch
property has been under consideration for over a decade. In 1996 the
Bureau began studying this possibility, and in 1998 the Bureau
finalized plans to fund a water bank on the property. After conducting
extensive studies regarding the feasibility of building a water bank on
the property, the Bureau was prepared to pay over $40 million for the
property and $60-$70 million to construct the water bank. This total
amount, in excess of $100 million, is significantly more than the cost
of MID's water bank almost 10 years later. Although the Bureau
eventually withdrew from the project because of local concerns
regarding sizing, water quality, and nonlocal ownership issues, no one
has ever disputed the suitability of the site for a water bank.
After the Bureau's involvement ended, Azurix, an Enron subsidiary,
attempted to build a water bank but was unable to complete the project
because of many of the same concerns raised during the Bureau's
efforts. However, many more studies were done during this phase for the
reformulated project. MID has also conducted further studies. To date,
over $8 million has been spent on studies related to the Project,
exclusive of the Bureau's own extensive studies of the project.
The legislation identifies 18 specific studies done over the past
decade on this project, many by the Bureau itself and others by private
parties and MID, all with the Bureau's full knowledge and involvement.
In many cases, the same engineering consulting firms used by the Bureau
were retained to conduct these further studies. There is simply nothing
left to study, and we should proceed immediately to the construction
phase of this project.
The Bureau has been a long-term supporter of California agriculture,
and working in partnership with the State, local governments, water
users and others has helped provide irrigation water for over 10
million farmland acres.
The MID water bank is consistent with the Bureau's historical mission
of supporting such locally controlled and initiated water projects.
Swift enactment of this legislation is necessary to bring over 10 years
of study to a conclusion and make the water bank a reality for Madera
County, the surrounding region, the Central Valley and the entire State
of California.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1473
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 ``Madera Water Supply
Enhancement Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act:
(1) The term ``District'' means the Madera Irrigation
District, Madera, California.
(2) The term ``Project'' means the Madera Water Supply
Enhancement Project, a groundwater bank on the 13,646 acre
Madera Ranch in Madera, California, owned, operated,
maintained, and managed by the District that will plan,
design, and construct recharge, recovery, and delivery
systems able to store up to 250,000 acre-feet of water and
recover up to 55,000 acre-feet of water per year.
(3) The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
United States Department of the Interior.
(4) The term ``total cost'' means all reasonable costs,
such as the planning, design, permitting, financing, and
construction of the Project and the fair market value of
lands used or acquired by the District for the Project. The
total cost of the Project shall not exceed $90,000,000.
SEC. 3. NO FURTHER STUDIES OR REPORTS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds that the Bureau of
Reclamation and others have conducted numerous studies
regarding the Project, including, but not limited to the
following:
(1) Bureau of Reclamation Technical Review Groups Final
Findings Memorandum, July 1997.
(2) Bureau of Reclamation Madera Ranch Artificial Recharge
Demonstration Test Memorandum, December 1997.
(3) Bureau of Reclamation Madera Ranch Groundwater Bank
Phase 1 Report, 1998.
(4) Draft Memorandum Recommendations for Phase 2
Geohydrologic Work, April 1998.
(5) Bureau of Reclamation Madera Ranch Water Banking
Proposal Economic Analysis--MP-340.
(6) Hydrologic Feasibility Report, December 2003.
(7) Engineering Feasibility Report, December 2003.
(8) Feasibility Study of the Preferred Alternative, Water
Supply Enhancement Project, 2005.
(9) Engineering Feasibility Report, June 2005.
(10) Report on Geologic and Hydrologic Testing Program for
Madera Ranch.
(11) Engine Driver Study, June 2005.
(12) Wetlands Delineation, 2000, 2001, 2004, and 2005.
(13) Madera Ranch Pilot Recharge: Interim Technical
Memorandum, May 2005.
(14) Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, July 2005.
(15) Certified California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), September 2005.
(16) Baseline Groundwater Level Monitoring Report, January
2006.
(17) Final Appraisal Study, Madera Irrigation District
Water Supply Enhancement Project, October 2006.
(18) WDS Groundwater Monitoring Status Report to Madera
Ranch Oversight Committee, November 2006.
(b) No Further Studies or Reports.--Pursuant to the
Reclamation Act of 1902 (32 Stat. 388) and Acts amendatory
thereof and supplemental thereto, the Project is feasible and
the Bureau of Reclamation shall not conduct any further
studies or reports related to determining the feasibility of
the Project.
SEC. 4. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.
All planning, design, and construction of the Project
authorized by this Act shall be undertaken in accordance with
a cooperative agreement between the Secretary and the
District for the Project. Such cooperative agreement shall
set forth in a manner acceptable to the Secretary and the
District the responsibilities of the District for
participating, which shall include--
[[Page S6852]]
(1) engineering and design;
(2) construction; and
(3) the administration of contracts pertaining to any of
the foregoing.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MADERA WATER SUPPLY AND
ENHANCEMENT PROJECT.
(a) Authorization of Construction.--The Secretary, acting
pursuant to the Federal reclamation laws (Act of June 17,
1902; 32 Stat. 388), and Acts amendatory thereof or
supplementary thereto, as far as those laws are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, is authorized
to enter into a cooperative agreement through the Bureau with
the District for the support of the design, and construction
of the Project.
(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the capital costs of
the Project shall not exceed 25 percent of the total cost as
defined in section 2(4). Capital, planning, design,
permitting, financing, construction, and land acquisition
costs incurred by the District prior to the date of the
enactment of this Act shall be considered a portion of the
non-Federal cost share.
(c) In-Kind Services.--In-kind services performed by the
District shall be considered a part of the local cost share
to complete the Project authorized by subsection (a).
(d) Credit for Non-Federal Work.--The District shall
receive credit toward the non-Federal share of the cost of
the Project for--
(1) reasonable costs incurred by the District as a result
of participation in the planning, design, permitting,
financing, and construction of the Project; and
(2) for the fair market value of lands used or acquired by
the District for the Project.
(e) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds for
the operation or maintenance of the Project authorized by
this section. The operation, ownership, and maintenance of
the Project shall be the sole responsibility of the District.
(f) Plans and Analyses Consistent With Federal Law.--Before
obligating funds for design or construction under this
section, the Secretary shall work cooperatively with the
District to use, to the extent possible, plans, designs, and
engineering and environmental analyses that have already been
prepared by the District for the Project. The Secretary shall
ensure that such information as is used is consistent with
applicable Federal laws and regulations.
(g) Title; Responsibility; Liability.--Nothing in this
section or the assistance provided under this section shall
be construed to transfer title, responsibility or liability
related to the Project to the United States.
(h) Authorization of Appropriation.--There is authorized to
be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this Act
$22,500,000 or 25 percent of the total cost of the Project,
whichever is less.
SEC. 6. SUNSET.
The authority of the Secretary to carry out any provisions
of this Act shall terminate 10 years after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1474. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to plan,
design and construct facilities to provide water for irrigation,
municipal, domestic, and other uses from the Bunker Hill Groundwater
Basin, Santa Ana River, California, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to authorize the Riverside-Corona feeder. This project, which is being
undertaken by Western Municipal Water District, would provide one of
California's fastest growing but drought prone regions, with 40,000
acre-feet of new supply at a reasonable cost of approximately $370 per
acre foot. The project would efficiently integrate groundwater storage
with existing surface supply management.
The purpose of the Riverside-Corona feeder water supply project is to
capture and store new water in the underground aquifer in wet years in
order to increase water supply, reduce water costs, and improve water
quality. The project will include about 20 wells and 28 miles of
pipeline. Studies have shown the safe annual yield of the aquifer is
about 40,000 acre-feet.
The project would allow locally stored water to replace the need to
import water from Colorado River and State water project sources in
times of drought or other shortages. The project proposes to manage the
ground water levels by the construction of ground water wells and
pumping capacity to deliver the pumped ground water supply to water
users. A new water conveyance pipeline is also proposed that will serve
western Riverside County.
For water users, dependence on imported water in dry years will be
reduced, water costs will be reduced, and water reliability will be
improved.
There are also very important environmental remediation aspects of
the project. Up to half of the wells would be placed within plumes of
VOCs and perchlorate. These wells could remediate about 20,000 acre-
feet of currently contaminated water per year. Detailed feasibility
studies and environmental reports have been prepared and approved by
Western Municipal Water District and certified by the State of
California.
The California State Water Resources Control Board recognizes that
the Riverside Corona feeder is an important project, recently awarding
it $4.3 million from proposition 50 competitive grant funds.
Because water agencies understand that the project is integral to
regional water planning, the Riverside-Corona feeder has the support of
agencies upstream in San Bernardino County and downstream in Orange
County. This bill is also supported by and fully consistent with the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Integrated
Resource Plan, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority's Integrated
Watershed Plan, and the water management plans for the cities of
Riverside, Norco and Corona as well as the Elsinore Valley Municipal
Water District.
This is a bipartisan initiative, as witnessed by the list of
cosponsors of the House version of the bill I introduce today. I urge
my colleagues to support this bill to help meet the West's water supply
needs and to reduce our dependence on the Colorado River.
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. 1474
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 ``Riverside-Corona Feeder
Water Supply Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions
apply:
(1) District.--The term ``District'' means the Western
Municipal Water District, Riverside County, California.
(2) Project.--The term ``Project'' means the Riverside-
Corona Feeder Project and associated facilities.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE RIVERSIDE-
CORONA FEEDER.
(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Western Municipal Water District, is authorized to
participate in the planning, design, and construction of a
water supply project, the Riverside-Corona Feeder, which
includes 20 groundwater wells, groundwater treatment
facilities, water storage and pumping facilities, and 28
miles of pipeline in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties,
California.
(b) Agreements and Regulations.--The Secretary may enter
into such agreements and promulgate such regulations as are
necessary to carry out this section.
(c) Federal Cost Share.--
(1) Planning, design, construction.--The Federal share of
the cost to plan, design, and construct the project described
in subsection (a) shall be not more than 25 percent of the
total cost of the project, not to exceed $50,000,000.
(2) Studies.--The Federal share of the cost to complete the
necessary planning studies associated with the project
described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 50 percent of
the total study cost and shall be included as part of the
limitation on funds provided in paragraph (1).
(d) In-Kind Services.--In-kind services performed by the
Western Municipal Water District shall be part of the local
cost share to complete the project described in subsection
(a).
(e) Limitation.--Funds provided by the Secretary under this
section shall not be used for operation or maintenance of the
project described in subsection (a).
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated, from funds in the Treasury not otherwise
appropriated, the Federal cost share described in subsection
(c).
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1475. A bill to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Bay Area Regional Water
Recycling Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, together with my good friend and
colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Committee on the
Environment and Public Works, I am pleased to introduce today
legislation to help the San Francisco bay area a region with a growing
population, limited
[[Page S6853]]
water resources, and a unique environmental setting, address its
critical water needs.
The bill, the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Authorization
Act of 2007, would help seven bay area communities increase their
municipal water supplies through innovative and much-needed water
recycling projects.
These projects offer significant benefits. For California and the
Federal Government such benefits include: the preservation of State and
Federal reservoir supplies for higher uses rather than for urban
landscape irrigation, particularly in drought years; and, a cost
effective, environmentally friendly, implementable solution for
increased dry year yield in the sensitive bay-delta region. Regional
and local benefits include: the preservation of ever declining water
supplies from the Sierra and delta for higher uses; assistance in
drought-proofing the region through provision of a sustainable and
reliable source of water; and reduction in wastewater discharges to the
sensitive bay-delta environment.
The Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program is a partnership
between 17 local bay area water and wastewater agencies, the California
Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that
is dedicated to maximizing water recycling throughout the region. The
regional approach taken by the bay area project sponsors ensures that
projects with the greatest regional, statewide, and national benefits
receive the highest priority for implementation.
This bill would authorize the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to
participate in seven bay area water recycling program projects that are
closest to completion. Each community with a project would be eligible
to receive 25 percent of the project's construction cost. The total
cost of the seven projects is $110 million, but the Federal
Government's share is only $27.5 million. State funding is available
for these projects.
For the most part, the projects are ready to proceed and start
delivering their benefits the projects having been repeatedly vetted,
both internally at the local level and through the various steps of the
Federal review process but Federal funding is needed to make
implementation a reality and to allow the many benefits of these
projects to be realized.
Specifically, the bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to participate in the following bay area water reuse projects: Antioch
Recycled Water project--Delta Diablo Sanitation District, city of
Antioch; North Coast County Water District Recycled Water project--
North Coast County Water District; Mountain View/Moffett Area Water
Reuse Project--city of Palo Alto, city of Mountain View: Pittsburg
Recycled Water Project-Delta Diablo Sanitation District, city of
Pittsburg; Redwood City Recycled Water project--city of Redwood; South
Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project-Santa Clara Valley Water
District, South County Regional Wastewater Authority; and, South Bay
Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility--Santa Clara Valley Water
District, city of San Jose.
These seven projects are estimated to make 12,205 acre-feet of water
available annually in the short term, and 37,600 acre-feet annually in
the long term, all while reducing demand on the delta and on existing
water infrastructure.
Congressman George Miller introduced a companion bill, H.R.1526, in
the House on March 14, 2007. The bill was cosponsored by other bay area
lawmakers, including Representatives Anna Eshoo, Ellen Tauscher, Jerry
McNerney, Tom Lantos, Mike Honda; Zoe Lofgren, and Pete Stark.
Water recycling offers great potential to States like California that
suffer periodic droughts and have limited fresh water supplies. To
address these issues, the bill would establish a partnership between
the Federal Government and local communities to implement a regional
water recycling program in the bay area. I urge my colleagues to join
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 was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1475
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 ``Bay Area Regional Water
Recycling Program Authorization Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--The Reclamation Wastewater and
Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575,
title XVI; 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``SEC. 16XX. MOUNTAIN VIEW, MOFFETT AREA RECLAIMED WATER
PIPELINE PROJECT.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
the City of Palo Alto, California, and the City of Mountain
View, California, is authorized to participate in the design,
planning, and construction of recycled water distribution
systems.
``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds
for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized
by this section.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$5,000,000.
``SEC. 16XX. PITTSBURG RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
the City of Pittsburg, California, and the Delta Diablo
Sanitation District, is authorized to participate in the
design, planning, and construction of recycled water system
facilities.
``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds
for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized
by this section.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$1,400,000.
``SEC. 16XX. ANTIOCH RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
the City of Antioch, California, and the Delta Diablo
Sanitation District, is authorized to participate in the
design, planning, and construction of recycled water system
facilities.
``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds
for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized
by this section.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$2,250,000.
``SEC. 16XX. NORTH COAST COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER
PROJECT.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
the North Coast County Water District, is authorized to
participate in the design, planning, and construction of
recycled water system facilities.
``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds
for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized
by this section.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$2,500,000.
``SEC. 16XX. REDWOOD CITY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
the City of Redwood City, California, is authorized to
participate in the design, planning, and construction of
recycled water system facilities.
``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds
for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized
by this section.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$1,100,000.
``SEC. 16XX. SOUTH SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECYCLED WATER PROJECT.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
the South County Regional Wastewater Authority and the Santa
Clara Valley Water District, is authorized to participate in
the design, planning, and construction of recycled water
system distribution facilities.
``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds
for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized
by this section.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$7,000,000.
``SEC. 16XX. SOUTH BAY ADVANCED RECYCLED WATER TREATMENT
FACILITY.
``(a) Authorization.--The Secretary, in cooperation with
the City of San Jose, California, and the Santa Clara Valley
Water
[[Page S6854]]
District, is authorized to participate in the design,
planning, and construction of recycled water treatment
facilities.
``(b) Cost Share.--The Federal share of the cost of the
project authorized by this section shall not exceed 25
percent of the total cost of the project.
``(c) Limitation.--The Secretary shall not provide funds
for the operation and maintenance of the project authorized
by this section.
``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
$8,250,000.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The table of items in section
2 of Public Law 102-575 is amended by inserting after the
item relating to section 16xx the following:
``Sec. 16xx. Mountain View, Moffett Area Reclaimed Water Pipeline
Project.
``Sec. 16xx. Pittsburg Recycled Water Project.
``Sec. 16xx. Antioch Recycled Water Project.
``Sec. 16xx. North Coast County Water District Recycled Water Project.
``Sec. 16xx. Redwood City Recycled Water Project.
``Sec. 16xx. South Santa Clara County Recycled Water Project.
``Sec. 16xx. South Bay Advanced Recycled Water Treatment Facility.''.
SEC. 3. SAN JOSE AREA WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECT.
It is the intent of Congress that a comprehensive water
recycling program for the San Francisco Bay Area include the
San Jose Area water reclamation and reuse program authorized
by section 1607 of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
Adjustment Act of 1992 (43 U.S.C 390h-5).
______
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Inouye):
S. 1476. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a special resources study of the Tule Lake Segregation Center in Modoc
County, California, to determine suitability and feasibility of
establishing a unit of the National Park System; to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Barbara
Boxer and Daniel Inouye to introduce legislation that would authorize
the National Park Service to conduct a special resource study of the
Tule Lake Segregation Center, a World War II-era Japanese American
internment camp, located in Northern California.
My colleagues in the House of Representatives, Congressman John
Doolittle and Congresswoman Doris Matsui, also are introducing
companion legislation today.
In 1942, as part of a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment following the
attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order
9066 to authorize the U.S. military to incarcerate Japanese American
families from California and other west coast States, in violation of
their due process rights afforded to all Americans.
Over the years, California's political leaders have led a national
bipartisan effort to ensure that this chapter in American history is
not forgotten.
In 1992, my colleagues in the California congressional delegation
passed bi-partisan legislation to establish the Manzanar National
Historic Site, the Nation's first unit of the National Park System
dedicated to telling the story of the wrongful internment of the
Japanese American community during World War II.
I am pleased to say that Manzanar has been a terrific success story.
My colleague Representative Jerry Lewis and I were able to secure
Federal appropriations to refurbish the camp auditorium to accommodate
the tens of thousands of visitors to the site. Last year, nearly 90,000
people visited the Manzanar National Historic Site to learn about this
unfortunate chapter in United States history.
As part of the Manzanar legislation, Congress directed the National
Park Service to conduct a study of the other camp sites and to
recommend National Historic Landmark designation for these sites. Based
on this study, the Department of the Interior designated Tule Lake as a
National Historic Landmark last year, upon finding that the remaining
42 acres of federally owned land at the site possesses national
significance.
Of all of the camp sites, Tule Lake has retained some of the most
significant historic features dating back to the internment. The
federally owned lands include numerous camp buildings in their original
locations, most notably the camp stockade, which was a ``jail within a
jail.'' The finding of the site's national significance by the
Secretary of the Interior last year is a key step forward in the
process to evaluate the site's potential for management by the National
Park Service.
Over the past several years, the Tule Lake Preservation Committee,
the Japanese American Citizens League, the Japanese American National
Museum and other local, regional and national partners have worked with
Modoc County and the local community to develop a recommendation to
study the potential for designation of the Tule Lake Segregation Center
as a National Historic Site. I am pleased that this legislation has
been endorsed by the Modoc County Board of Supervisors.
Although the Tule Lake Segregation Center is already a National
Historic Landmark, the 42-acre site is not managed by the National Park
Service. This bill would authorize the National Park Service to study
the feasibility and suitability of managing the Federal lands at Tule
Lake as a 42-acre National Historic Site, to be managed as part of the
Lava Beds National Monument. Through this legislation, the NPS will
develop various management alternatives for the site and give the
public an opportunity to comment on the alternatives, through a public
process. In light of the recent National Park Service work to prepare
the national historic landmark designation, the cost to complete this
study is quite modest. Upon completion of the study, the NPS would
transmit the study to Congress for review.
This year marks the 65th anniversary of the internment of Japanese-
Americans, when the Federal Government ordered Japanese American men,
women and children to report to temporary assembly centers, including
13 centers in California. Many families were broken up as fathers were
sent to prisons, work camps and Department of Justice camps hundreds of
miles away. Without hearings or any evidence of disloyalty, Japanese-
American families were transported to assembly centers in April and May
of 1942. The largest assembly center was at the Santa Anita racetrack,
which held over 18,000 people in horse stalls and other makeshift
quarters.
Deprived of their basic constitutional rights, Japanese-American
citizens and resident aliens were held in these centers until the U.S.
government built more permanent camps in 10 locations in California and
throughout the Western States and Arkansas. Together, these camps held
over 120,000 Japanese Americans, of which about three quarters were
living in California before the war.
My good friend, the late-Representative Robert Matsui, was just an
infant when his family was ordered from their home in Sacramento to the
Pinedale Assembly Center. From there, he was sent to the Tule Lake,
Segregation Center in Modoc County, CA not far from the Oregon border.
Like the other camps, the Tule Lake Relocation Center was constructed
in a remote area, on a large tract of federally owned land, managed by
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Prisoners there held frequent
demonstrations and strikes, demanding their rights under the U.S.
Constitution. As a result, Tule Lake was made a ``segregation camp,''
and internees from other camps who had refused to take the loyalty oath
or had caused disturbances were sent there.
Despite these injustices, many young men in camp answered the call to
serve in the U.S. Army and demonstrated their loyalty to the United
States and to defend the same basic constitutional freedoms that had
been violated by the U.S. Government's actions. Japanese Americans
served with great valor and bravery in Europe, including our colleague
Senator Daniel Inouye.
During its operation, Tule Lake was the largest of the 10 camps, with
18,789 people housed in makeshift barracks. Opened on May 27, 1942,
Tule Lake was one of the last camps to be closed, staying open until
March 20, 1946, 7 months following the end of World War II.
Following World War II, our Nation has recognized that the forced
evacuation and incarceration of Japanese Americans was wrong and that
there was no basis to question the loyalty and patriotism of Japanese
Americans.
The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II was a grim
chapter in America's history. Conducting this special resources study,
[[Page S6855]]
and the potential creation of the Tule Lake National Historic Site,
will help ensure that we honor surviving internees during their
lifetime and will serve as a lasting reminder of our ability to inflict
pain and suffering upon our fellow Americans.
It is important that we recognize the historic significance of Tule
Lake Segregation Center within the lifetimes of the few surviving
Japanese-American internees, before many of their stories are lost.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. I ask
unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1476
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 ``Tule Lake Segregation Center
Special Resource Study Act''.
SEC. 2. STUDY.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior (referred to
in this Act as the ``Secretary'') shall conduct a special
resource study of the national significance, suitability, and
feasibility of including the Tule Lake Segregation Center in
the National Park System.
(b) Inclusion of Sites in the National Park System.--The
study under subsection (a) shall include an analysis and any
recommendations of the Secretary concerning the suitability
and feasibility of designating the site as a unit of the
National Park System that relates to the themes described in
section 3.
(c) Study Guidelines.--In conducting the study authorized
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall use the criteria
for the study of areas for potential inclusion in the
National Park System contained in section 8 of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5).
(d) Consultation.--In preparing and conducting the study
under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult with Modoc
County, the State of California, appropriate Federal
agencies, Tribal and local government entities, private
organizations, and private land owners.
SEC. 3. THEMES.
The study authorized under section 2 shall evaluate the
Tule Lake Segregation Center with respect to the following
themes:
(1) The significance of the site as a component of World
War II.
(2) The significance of the site as it related to other war
relocation centers.
(3) Historic buildings, including the stockade, that are
intact and in place, along with numerous other resources.
(4) The contributions made by the local agricultural
community to the war effort.
(5) The potential impact of designation of the sire as a
unit of the National Park Service on private land owners.
SEC. 4. REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after funds are made available for
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a
report describing the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the study.
______
By Mr. SALAZAR (for himself and Mr. Allard):
S. 1477. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry
out the Jackson Gulch rehabilitation project in the State of Colorado;
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, today Senator Allard and I introduced the
Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation Act of 2007, which would authorize $6.4
million, subject to appropriations, to pay an 80-percent Federal cost-
share for rehabilitation of the Jackson Gulch Canal system and related
infrastructures in southwest Colorado.
Nearly 60 years ago, the Mancos Project canal was built, delivering
water from Jackson Gulch Dam to residents, farms and businesses in
Montezuma County. Since its construction, the Mancos Project has been
maintained by the Mancos Water Conservancy District and inspected by
the Bureau, but has outlived its expected life and is now badly in need
of rehabilitation.
The people of Montezuma County have shown great patience on the
Mancos Project, but the situation is turning dire. Washington must not
forget the needs of people in rural areas, and in the rural areas of
the West, water is one of the most important needs they have.
The Mancos Project and the Jackson Gulch Dam provide supplemental
agricultural water for about 8,650 irrigated acres and a domestic water
supply for the Mesa Verde National Park. The Mancos Project also
delivers water to the more than 500 members of the Mancos Rural Water
Company, the town of Mancos, and at least 237 agricultural businesses.
The project was build in 1949, and although it has been maintained
since then by the district and inspected by the Bureau of Reclamation,
the project has outlived its expected life and is badly in need of
rehabilitation. The estimated cost to rehabilitate the canal system is
less than one-third the cost of replacement.
If the Jackson Gulch Canal system experienced a catastrophic failure,
it could result in Mesa Verde National Park being without water during
the peak of their visitation and fire season, the town of Mancos
suffering a severe municipal water shortage, and the possible loss of
up to approximately $1.48 million dollars of crop production and sales
annually.
Mr. President, the Mancos Water Conservancy District has already
obtained a loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which, when
combined with a recent mill levy increase, will enable the district to
meet its share of the project costs. The Federal Government through the
Bureau of Reclamation has an important role to play as well. I look
forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation.
______
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself and Mr. Enzi):
S. 1481. A bill to restore fairness and reliability to the medical
justice system and promote patient safety by fostering alternatives to
current medical tort litigation, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, for years, Congress has not been able to
answer the question, ``What can be done about rising medical
malpractice insurance premiums?'' Today, Senator Enzi and I begin a
process we hope will end with action by Congress to resolve the
problem.
The discussions the Senate has had about medical malpractice premiums
until now have centered around imposing caps on noneconomic damages.
The debate over caps has occurred several times in recent years, and
has always ended with a failure to invoke cloture to vote on the
legislation.
I have consistently opposed caps legislation because caps have been
unsuccessful in preventing increases in medical malpractice premiums in
my home State of Montana, as well as several other States. Clearly, it
is time for a different approach.
The problem of rising insurance premiums affects the medical
community, the legal community and, most importantly, patients.
Doctors, burdened with continually-increasing insurance costs, have
chosen to retire early, relocate their practices, or limit the services
they provide to avoid high-risk procedures. Lawyers are concerned that
reforms limit patients' ability to be compensated for their injuries.
While patients find themselves caught in the middle, with ever-
decreasing access to medical and legal services.
One of the reasons caps do not offer significant hope for improving
the situation is that they treat the symptom of increasing premiums but
not the underlying disease. We need to look for solutions that get to
the root of the problem.
Any successful resolution to the problem must focus on compensating
injured patients and on attempting to prevent similar injuries in the
future. A 1999 Institute of Medicine study, To Err is Human, estimated
that medical errors cause as many as 98,000 deaths per year in our
Nation's hospitals alone. Even more deaths occur over the long-term and
outside hospitals.
I think a new approach is in order. As such, Senator Enzi and I
introduced the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act in the 109th
Congress, and we are here today to reintroduce it. Our bill is
innovative in how it confronts the problem.
We believe that a solution to this complex problem requires
flexibility. We believe that because the civil justice system is
largely a function of State law, the States are best situated to decide
how their systems can be improved to work better for patients. We also
believe that changes of this order should be tested and well thought
out rather than simply mandated. There is no one size fits all answer.
So, our bill provides flexibility, leaves the decision-making to
States and provides for demonstration programs to implement change in a
thoughtful way. We owe a debt of gratitude to the experts at the
Institute of Medicine for their 2002 report entitled, Fostering Rapid
Advances in Health
[[Page S6856]]
Care: Learning from System Demonstration, for helping shape the Fair
and Reliable Justice Act.
Our bill promotes State-based demonstrations of alternatives to
current medical liability litigation. It aims to increase the number of
patients who receive compensation for their injuries. It also tries to
improve the speed with which they receive such compensation. The bill
also encourages patient safety by promoting disclosure of medical
errors, unlike the current tort system which encourages doctors to
cover up medical mistakes.
Because the insurance premium problem and civil justice remedies vary
by state we feel that the States are best positioned to analyze their
unique situations and most capable to implement an effective solution.
Therefore, the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act would establish
State-based demonstration programs. The bill allows States to develop
new ways to address and resolve their health care dispute issues.
There are innovative efforts already in effect in the private sector
and some States that have achieved some success. I think it is time to
encourage more innovation, to expand the range of options, and to
empower the states to experiment and learn how to solve this persistent
problem.
I want to thank Senator Enzi for his leadership on this issue. I am
proud to have worked with him. I also want to recognize Representatives
Cooper and Thornberry, who are dropping a companion bill in the House
today. This bill approaches the medical liability insurance premium
problem from a new perspective, through a set of common-sense pilot
projects centered on improving patient safety. Rather than mandating a
Federal band-aid for this recurring problem, this bill encourages the
States to be innovative and creative to solve the problem while giving
them flexibility and Federal support to implement their cures.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise to discuss a bill that I will
introduce today with Senator Baucus--the Fair and Reliable Medical
Justice Act of 2007. This legislation recognizes the current disrepair
of our medical liability system and puts into place a process that will
provide better results for patients and for doctors.
Our legislation is designed to encourage States to rethink the way
the system works so that injured patients receive fair and just
compensation in a more timely manner. The new system would also provide
consistent and reliable results so that doctors can eliminate the
practice of defensive medicine and instead focus on the needs of each
individual patient. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen right now
because our system is broken.
I know we debate medical litigation frequently here on the floor, but
throughout those debates I have noticed something interesting. Whenever
we argue the pros and cons of the bills before us, no one ever stands
up to argue that the system doesn't need any reform. In fact, everyone
in the Senate agrees that our medical litigation system needs to be
changed.
Why doesn't anyone try to defend our current medical litigation
system? Because it doesn't work. No one--not patients or health care
providers--are appropriately served by our current procedures. Right
now, many patients who are hurt by negligent actions receive no
compensation for their loss. Those who do receive a mere 40 cents of
every premium dollar, given the high costs of legal fees and
administrative costs. That is simply a waste of medical resources. The
randomness and delay associated with medical litigation does not
contribute to timely, reasonable compensation for most
injured patients. Some injured patients get huge jury awards, while
many others get nothing at all. It is important to patients and doctors
that our justice system is perceived as both efficient and fair.
Furthermore, the likelihood and the outcomes of lawsuits and
settlements bear little relation to whether a healthcare provider was
at fault. Consequently, we are not learning from our mistakes. Rather,
we are simply diverting our doctors. When someone has a medical
emergency they want to see a doctor in an operating room, not a court
room.
The medical liability system is losing information that could be used
to improve the practice of medicine. Although zero medical errors is an
unattainable goal, the reduction of medical errors, should be the
ultimate goal in medical liability reform. The Institute of Medicine,
in its seminal study, ``To Err is Human,'' estimated that preventable
medical errors kill somewhere between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans each
year. That study further emphasized that to improve our health care
outcomes, we should no longer focus on individual situations but on the
whole systems of care that are failing American patients. In the 8
years since that study, little progress has been made. Instead, the
practice of medicine has become more specialized and complex, while the
tort system has forced more focus on individual blame than on system
safety.
To mitigate that individual blame, doctors practice ``defensive
medicine.'' Simply stated, ``defensive medicine'' occurs when a doctor
departs from doing what is best for the patient because of fear of a
lawsuit. Defensive medicine can mean ordering more tests or providing
more treatment than necessary. For instance, a doctor might order an
unnecessary and painful biopsy. Some estimates suggest that Americans
will pay $70 billion for defensive medicine this year. Even if it is
half that, it is still way too much.
Let's face it. Our medical litigation system is in need of repair. It
fails to achieve its twin objectives. It doesn't provide fair and fast
compensation to injured patients, and it doesn't effectively deter
future mistakes. Even worse, it replaces the element of trust that is
so vital to the provider-patient relationship with distrust. We can
make it better.
That is why I am introducing this key legislation with Senator Baucus
today. Our bill would provide $5 million to 10 States to initiate,
fund, and evaluate demonstration projects that offer alternatives to
traditional tort litigation. It will not pre-empt State law. It will
allow States to find creative alternatives that will work much better
for patients and providers in each State. The States have been policy
pioneers in many areas before, including workers' compensation, welfare
reform, and electricity deregulation. Medical litigation should be the
next item on the agenda of the laboratories of democracy that are our
50 States. Let's take a step forward for American patients and their
doctors by allowing this framework to move forward and make the changes
that we all know are needed.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1482. A bill to amend part A of title IV of the Social Security
Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct
research on indicators of child well-being; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce bipartisan
legislation today along with my distinguished colleague, Senator
Olympia Snowe, known as the State Child Well-Being Research Act of
2007. This bill is designed to enhance child well-being by requiring
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to facilitate the collection
of State-specific data based on a set of defined indicators. The well-
being of children is important to both the national and State
governments and data collection is a priority that should not be
ignored.
In 1996, Congress passed bold legislation to dramatically change our
welfare system, and I supported it. The driving force behind this
reform was to promote work and self-sufficiency of families and to
provide flexibility to States--where most child and family legislation
takes place--to achieve these goals. States have used this flexibility
to design different programs that work better for families who rely on
them. Other programs that serve children, ranging from the Children
Health Insurance Program, CHIP, to child welfare services, can vary
among States.
It is obvious that in order for policy makers to evaluate child well-
being, we need State-by-State data on child well-being to measure the
results. Current survey methods can provide minimal data on some
indicators of child well-being, but insufficient data is provided on
low-income families, geographic variation, and young children.
Additionally, the information is not provided in a timely manner, which
impedes legislators' ability to effectively
[[Page S6857]]
accomplish the goals set forth in welfare reform.
The State Child Well Being Research Act Of 2007 is intended to fill
this information gap by collecting up-to-date, State-specific data that
can be used by policymakers, researchers, and child advocates to assess
the well-being of children. It would require that a survey examine the
physical and emotional health of children, adequately represent the
experiences of families in individual States, be consistent across
States, be collected annually, articulate results in easy to understand
terms, and focus on low-income children and families. This legislation
also establishes an advisory committee which consists of a panel of
experts who specialize in survey methodology, indicators of child well-
being, and application of this data to ensure that the purpose is being
achieved.
Further, this bill avoids some ofthe other problems in the current
system by making data files easier to use and more readily available to
the public. As a result, the information will be more useful for
policy-makers managing welfare reform and programs for children and
families.
Finally, this legislation also offers the potential for the Health
and Human Service Department to partner with several private charitable
foundations, including the Annie E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur, and McKnight foundations, who are interested in forming a
partnership to provide outreach and support and to guarantee that the
data collected would be broadly disseminated. This type of public-
private partnership helps to leverage additional resources for children
and families and increases the study's impact. Given the tight budget
we face, partnerships make sense to meet this essential need. I hope my
colleagues review this legislation carefully and support it so that we
and State policy makers and advocates have the information necessary to
make good decisions for children.
______
By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1483. A bill to create a new incentive fund that will encourage
States to adopt the 21st Century Skills Framework; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to create a 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund, and I am proud to have
the bipartisan support of my colleague, Senator Olympia Snowe. We have
a tradition of working together, especially on education and
technology.
This legislation is designed to support and encourage those States
that are willing to accept the bold challenge of the Partnership for
21st Century Skills to teach the core subjects, but to also go beyond
the basics to include 21st Century themes like global awareness and
entrepreneurial literacy. The partnership's framework emphasizes skills
like critical thinking, innovation and communication skills. It also
promotes information and communications technology literacy, known as
ICT literacy, and life and career skills such as self direction and
leadership. This bold agenda needs to be woven into State education
strategy at every level, including standards and assessments,
curriculum, professional development, and learning environments.
Every State willing to accept and work to implement such a
progressive model and agenda deserves encouragement and support. That
is why this bill would create a 21st Century Skills Incentive Fund to
provide Federal matching dollars for new State investments and
foundation donations to 21st Century Skills. There would also be a
Federal tax incentive for corporate donations. The Federal Government
won't put up a dime until a state's plan is approved by the Partnership
for 21st Century Skills, a nonprofit organization of leading technology
companies and education leaders. But the Federal Government will offer
matching grants to help States that are willing to make an investment
in such quality education.
This is an important investment, and the next step to enhance
education and prepare our students for the new, competitive workforce.
This initiative also will emphasize global awareness, civic literacy
and life skills so young people understand our place in the world and
are ready to take on greater responsibilities in understanding and
improving their own communities.
The Partnership for 21st Century Skills Partnership has introduced a
new model for education. It represents a bold and important new
direction for the future of education in this country. This legislation
is designed to help the Federal Government become a partner and play a
positive role in preparing our students for their future.
______
By Mr. COLEMAN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 1488. A bill to amend the definition of independent student for
purposes of the need analysis in the Higher Education Act of 1965 to
include older adopted students; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. President, as U.S. Senators, we are well aware of
the difficulty in making tough decisions. But, a tough decision for 13-
year-old foster care child shouldn't be choosing between being adopted
and having a permanent loving, stable, and secure family, or attending
college for a promising future. Today, I am proud to be joined by my
friend, Senator Mary Landrieu from Louisiana, in introducing the
Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act because we
believe all youth deserve both a loving family and a future of hope.
Our legislation promotes older adoptions of foster care youth by not
later penalizing the adopting family when their student applies for
student Federal financial aid.
We have heard from former foster teens across our Nation who have
stated that they were better off ``aging'' out of the foster care
system than being adopted by a family because of a fear of losing
student Federal financial aid because as a foster student they don't
have to report any parental income on their student financial aid
application.
Our legislation provides a solution by amending the definition of
``independent student'' to include foster care youth who were adopted
after the age of 13 in the Higher Education Act of 1965. Thus, the
family and student would not be penalized on their Federal financial
aid as their classification would be determined by only the student's
ability to pay. Most prospective adopting parents would not have
financially planned for an older teen becoming part of their family.
Our legislation offers an incentive to promote older adoptions rather
than having the teen stay in foster families until they ``age out.''
The numbers are startling and its time we act. Currently, 20,000
youth ``age'' out of the foster care system each year with 30 percent
of these youth incarcerated within 12 months of doing so. There are
513,000 children in foster care with nearly half the kids over the age
of 10. Children in foster care are twice as likely as the rest of the
population to drop out before finishing high school. Several foster
care alumni studies indicate that within three years after leaving
foster care: only 54 percent had earned their high school diploma, only
2 percent had graduated from a four-year college, and 25 to 44 percent
had experienced homelessness.
Statistics show youth that are adopted out of the foster care system
attend college, have stable lives, have a permanent family, and have a
future of hope. One to two years of community college coursework
significantly increases the likelihood of economic self-sufficiency. A
college degree is the single greatest factor in determining access to
better job opportunities and higher earnings.
The Fostering Adoption To Further Student Achievement Act ensures
that children don't have to make a tough decision between choosing to
have a family or an education.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1488
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 ``Fostering Adoption to
Further Student Achievement Act''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO INDEPENDENT STUDENT.
Section 480(d) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 1087vv(d)) is amended--
[[Page S6858]]
(1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(8) was adopted from the foster care system when the
individual was 13 years of age or older.''.
______
By Mr. CARPER (for himself and Mr. Voinovich):
S. 1490. A bill to provide for the establishment and maintenace of
electronic personal health records for individuals and family members
enrolled in Federal employee health benefits plans under chaper 89 of
title 5, United States Code, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Govermental Affairs.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a piece of
legislation that Senator Voinovich and I have been working on for over
a year now.
The Federal Employees Electronic Personal Health Records Act of 2007
makes available electronic personal health records for every enrollee
of a Federal health benefits plan who wishes to have one.
Americans will probably spend more than $2 trillion on health care
this year alone. Over the next 10 years, health care costs will more
than double, topping $4 trillion in 2015.
We spend $6,700 per person on health care, more than twice of what
other industrialized nations spend; and for the most part, we are not
receiving the gold standard of treatment in care.
A 2005 survey found that medical error rates in the United States far
exceed those of other Western countries.
And in that survey, one in three Americans reported getting the wrong
dosage of medication, incorrect test results, mistakes in treatment, or
late notification of a test result. That is nearly 15 percent higher
than similar results in Britain and Germany.
Our excessive reliance on paper record keeping makes our health care
system less efficient, more costly and more prone to mistakes.
Doctors diagnose patients without knowing their full medical history,
what they are allergic to, what kind of surgeries they have had,
whether they have complained about similar symptoms before.
Time constraints, or medical necessity, often force doctors to form a
quick diagnosis. Sometimes that diagnosis is wrong and sometimes it
proves to be a costly error.
The widespread use of health information technology, the ability to
immediately grab someone's full medical history off of a computer, can
help doctors provide better care more cheaply. It has the potential to
drastically transform the way we provide health care.
If we are looking for success stories on how health care
professionals have integrated the use of electronic health records into
their daily routines, we don't have to look any further than our own
Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
Times have certainly changed since I retired from the Navy some 16
years ago. I used to keep all my medical records in a brown manila
folder.
I carried this manila folder with me from the time I left Ohio State,
on to Pensacola, Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, out to California,
across the seas and back again, and finally, getting off of active duty
and coming to Delaware to enroll in business school, on the GI bill, at
the University of Delaware.
Over a decade ago, the DOD and the VA decided there was a better way.
And the results have been nothing short of phenomenal.
Today, when a patient enrolls in DOD's Military Health System, they
get an electronic health record, not a brown manila folder in which to
carry years of paper medical records. Your electronic record will
follow you wherever you go, both during your time when you are serving
in the military and when you leave to join our veterans' community.
Researchers and doctors now laud the VA for having the foresight to
use electronic health records to improve patient care and transform
itself into one of the best health care operations in the country.
And the cost? About $78 per patient, roughly the cost of not
repeating one blood test. In other words, money well spent.
I have witnessed that new-found satisfaction right in my own back
yard, at our Veterans Medical Center in Elsmere, DE. Veterans from
neighboring States are now coming to Elsmere to seek care instead of
going to regular civilian hospitals near them.
So what is keeping the rest of the Nation's health care system from
following the lead of the DOD and the VA?
The answer is the high cost of implementing the latest information
technologies, as well as the lack of uniformity among various
technology products.
A physician can spend up to $40,000 implementing an electronic health
records system. A hospital can spend up to five times that amount.
If that weren't enough of a reason to say ``no thanks,'' there is
another. We don't have a set of national standards in place to make
sure that once health care providers have made the switch, their new
systems can communicate with the hospital or doctor on the other side
of town.
As a nation, we cannot afford to rely solely on health care providers
to bring the health care industry into the 21st century.
While I was Governor, I signed legislation that would call for the
creation of a statewide information network to bring our health care
system into the 21st century. Delaware is well underway toward meeting
our goal of establishing the first statewide health information
infrastructure.
We must think outside of the box and build on health information
technology initiatives that are all already underway in other areas of
the health care industry.
The Federal Employees Electronic Personal Health Records Act of 2006
will require all Insurance Plans that contract with the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program, FEHBP, to make available an
electronic personal health record for enrollees in the program.
Via the Internet, an enrollee will be able to log-on to his or her
electronic personal health record to keep track of such things as their
medications, cholesterol and glucose levels, allergies, and
immunization records. An enrollee will also be able to view a
comprehensive, easily understood listing of their health care claims.
An enrollee can easily share sections of the electronic personal
health record with their health care provider, ensuring that their
health care provider has the most up-to-date and accurate health
information when making clinical decisions.
Having health information readily available will increase the
efficiency and safety of health care for an enrollee by eliminating
unwarranted tests, procedures, and prescriptions.
Most importantly, the legislation ensures that the electronic
personal health records provided for through this act are kept private
and secure.
The electronic personal health records are required to include a
number of security features, such as a user authentication and audit
trails.
The legislation also requires that insurance plans comply with all
privacy and security regulations outlined in the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act.
This bill is designed to jumpstart this new technology by requiring
some of the largest health insurance companies to offer electronic
personal health records, which many are already doing.
As more insurance companies, health care providers and consumers use
this new technology, I am convinced that more people will recognize its
advantages and we can more quickly move America's health care industry
into the 21st century.
And as the Nation's largest employer-sponsored health insurance
program, who better than the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program
to lead the way in this endeavor.
I urge my colleagues to support the Federal Employees Electronic
Personal Health Records Act of 2007.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1490
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 Employees Electronic
Personal Health Records Act of 2007''.
[[Page S6859]]
SEC. 2. ELECTRONIC PERSONAL HEALTH RECORDS FOR FEDERAL
EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS.
(a) Contract Requirement.--Section 8902 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(p) Each contract under this chapter shall require the
carrier to provide for the establishment and maintenance of
electronic personal health records in accordance with section
8915.''.
(b) Electronic Personal Health Records.--Chapter 89 of
title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after
section 8914 the following:
``Sec. 8915. Electronic personal health records
``(a) In this section, the term--
``(1) `claims data' means--
``(A) a comprehensive record of health care services
provided to an individual, including prescriptions; and
``(B) contact information for providers of health care
services; and
``(2) `standard electronic format' means a format that--
``(A) uses open electronic standards;
``(B) enables health information technology to be used for
the collection of clinically specific data;
``(C) promotes the interoperability of health care
information across health care settings, including reporting
under this section and to other Federal agencies;
``(D) facilitates clinical decision support;
``(E) is useful for diagnosis and treatment and is
understandable for the individual or family member; and
``(F) is based on the Federal messaging and health
vocabulary standard endorsed by--
``(i) the Office of the National Coordinator for Health
Information Technology;
``(ii) the American Health Information Community; or
``(iii) the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
``(b)(1) Each carrier entering into a contract for a health
benefits plan under section 8915 shall provide for the
establishment and maintenance of electronic personal health
records for each individual and family member enrolled in
that health benefits plan in accordance with this section.
``(2) In the administration of this section, the Office of
Personnel Management--
``(A) shall ensure that each individual and family member
is provided--
``(i) timely notice of the establishment and maintenance of
electronic personal health records; and
``(ii) an opportunity to file an election at any time to--
``(I) not participate in the establishment or maintenance
of an electronic personal health record for that individual
or family member; and
``(II) in the case of an electronic personal health record
that is established under this section, terminate that
electronic personal health record;
``(B) shall ensure that each electronic personal health
record shall--
``(i) be based on standard electronic formats;
``(ii) be available for electronic access through the
Internet for the use of the individual or family member to
whom the record applies;
``(iii) enable the individual or family member to--
``(I) share any contents of the electronic personal health
record through transmission in standard electronic format,
fax transmission, or other additional means to providers of
health care services or other persons;
``(II) copy or print any contents of the electronic
personal health record; and
``(III) add supplementary health information, such as
information relating to--
``(aa) personal, medical, and emergency contacts;
``(bb) laboratory tests;
``(cc) social history;
``(dd) health conditions;
``(ee) allergies;
``(ff) dental services;
``(gg) immunizations;
``(hh) prescriptions;
``(ii) family health history;
``(jj) alternative treatments;
``(kk) appointments; and
``(ll) any additional information as needed;
``(iv) contain--
``(I) to the extent feasible, claims data from--
``(aa) providers of health care services that participate
in health benefits plans under this chapter;
``(bb) other providers of health care services; and
``(cc) other health benefits plans in which the individual
or family members have participated;
``(II) to the extent feasible, clinical care,
pharmaceutical, and laboratory records; and
``(III) the name of the source for each item of health
information;
``(v) authenticate the identity of each individual upon
accessing the electronic personal health record; and
``(vi) contain an audit trail to list the identity of
individuals who access the electronic personal health record;
and
``(C) shall ensure that the individual or family member may
designate--
``(i) any other individual to access and exercise control
over the sharing of the electronic personal health record;
and
``(ii) any other individual to access the electronic
personal health record in an emergency;
``(D) shall require each health benefits plan to comply
with all privacy and security regulations promulgated under
section 246(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2) and other
relevant laws relating to privacy and security;
``(E) shall require each carrier that enters into a
contract for a health benefits plan to provide for the
electronic transfer of the contents of an electronic personal
health record to another electronic personal health record
under a different health benefits plan maintained under this
section or a similar record not maintained under this section
if--
``(i) coverage in a health benefits plan under this chapter
for an individual or family member terminates; and
``(ii) that individual or family member elects such a
transfer;
``(F) shall require each carrier to provide for education,
awareness, and training on electronic personal health records
for individuals and family members enrolled in health
benefits plans; and
``(G) may require each carrier to provide for an electronic
personal health record to be made available for electronic
access, other than through the Internet, for the use of the
individual or family member to whom the record applies, if
that individual or family member requests such access.
``(3) Nothing in paragraph (2)(C) shall be construed to
provide any rights additional to the rights provided under
the privacy and security regulations promulgated under
section 246(c) of the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 1320d-2) and other
relevant laws relating to privacy and security.''.
(c) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of
sections for chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 8915. Electronic personal health records.''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATES AND APPLICATION.
(a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b),
the amendments made by this Act shall take effect 30 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Establishment and Maintenance of Electronic Personal
Health Records.--The requirement for the establishment and
maintenance of electronic personal health records under
sections 8902(p) and 8915 of title 5, United States Code (as
added by this Act), shall apply with respect to contracts for
health benefits plans under chapter 89 of that title which
take effect on and after January of the earlier of--
(1) the first calendar year following 2 years after the
date of enactment of this Act; or
(2) any calendar year determined by the Office of Personnel
Management.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I wish to speak about a bill my
colleague Senator Carper and I introduced today, the Electronic
Personal Health Records Act. The purpose of this legislation is to
provide for the establishment and maintenance of electronic personal
health records for individuals and family members enrolled in the
Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, FEHBP.
The widespread adoption of health information technology, such as
electronic health records, EHR, will revolutionize the health care
profession. In fact, the Institute of Medicine, the National Committee
on Vital and Health Statistics, and other expert panels have identified
information technology as one of the most powerful tools in reducing
medical errors and improving the quality of care. Unfortunately, our
country's health care industry lags far behind other sectors of the
economy in its investment in IT.
The Institute of Medicine estimates that there are nearly 98,000
deaths each year resulting from medical errors. Many of these deaths
can be directly attributed to the inherent imperfections of our current
paper-based health care system. This statistic is startling and one
that I hope will motivate my colleagues to take a close look at the
goals of our legislation.
The voluntary EHRs that would be established through the Electronic
Personal Health Records Act will provide clinicians with real-time
access to their patient's health history. Each EHR would contain claims
data, contact information for providers of health care services, and
other useful information for diagnosis and treatment. The records will
be available cost-free to FEHBP participants and will maintain strict
adherence to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,
HIPAA.
Under the bill, the Office of Personnel Management, OPM, would be
required to ensure that all carriers who participate in FEHBP educate
their members about the implementation of the EHR, as well as give
timely notice of the establishment of the record and an opportunity for
each individual to elect not to participate in the program.
OPM, through their carriers, would also have to ensure that all
records
[[Page S6860]]
would be available for electronic access through Internet, fax, or
printed method for the use of the individual, and that to the extent
possible, records could be transferred from one plan to another. The
bill would require EHRs to be made available 2 years after the passage
of the legislation or earlier at the discretion of OPM in consultation
with the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology within HHS.
Not only can EHRs save lives and improve the quality of health care,
they also have the potential to reduce the cost of the delivery of
health care. According to Rand Corporation, the health care delivery
system in the United States could save approximately $160 billion
annually with the widespread use of electronic medical records. As a
result, the private market is already moving toward implementing
electronic medical records.
This bill, simply encourages the health care industry to continue in
that direction and take their use of technology in the delivery of care
to the next step. I urge my colleagues to consider not only the benefit
it will provide to the 8 million individuals who receive their health
care through the FEHBP, but also to our Nation's overall health care
system.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Cantwell,
Ms. Klobuchar, and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1492. A bill to improve the quality of federal and state data
regarding the availability and quality of broadband services and to
promote the deployment of affordable broadband services to all parts of
the Nation; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, broadband communications are quickly
becoming the great economic engine of our time. Broadband deployment
drives opportunities for business, education, and healthcare. It
provides widespread access to information that can change the way we
communicate with one another and improve the quality of our lives. From
our smallest rural hamlets to our largest urban centers, communities
across this country should have access to the opportunities ubiquitous
broadband can bring. The state of our broadband union should be
broadband for all.
But the news on this front is not all good. Last month, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported that the
United States has fallen to 15th in the world in broadband penetration.
In some Asian and European countries, households have high-speed
connections that are 20 times faster than ours, for half the cost.
While some will debate what, in fact, these rankings measure, one thing
that cannot be debated is the fact that we continue to fall
precipitously down the list. In 2000 the United States ranked 4th; last
year we dropped to 12th; and just last month we dropped to 15th. The
broadband bottom line is that too many of our international
counterparts are passing us by. For this we are paying a price. Some
experts estimate that universal broadband adoption would add $500
billion to the U.S. economy and create more than a million new jobs.
In a digital age, the world will not wait for us. It is imperative
that we get our broadband house in order and our communications policy
right. But we cannot manage what we do not measure. So the first step
in an improved broadband policy is ensuring that we have better data on
which to build our efforts.
That is why I am here today to introduce the Broadband Data
Improvement Act. This legislation will improve the quality of Federal
and State data regarding the availability of broadband service. This,
in turn, can be used to craft policies that will increase the
availability of affordable broadband service in all parts of the
Nation. This legislation will improve broadband data collection at the
Federal Communications Commission and Bureau of the Census. It will
direct the Comptroller General and the Small Business Administration to
study our broadband challenge. It will encourage State initiatives to
improve broadband adoption by establishing a State broadband data and
development grant program that will authorize $40 million for each of
fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
With too many of our industrial counterparts ahead of us, we sorely
need the kind of granular data that will inform our policies and propel
us to the front of the broadband ranks. I believe that the Broadband
Data Improvement Act will give us the tools to make this happen.
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. 1492
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 ``Broadband Data Improvement
Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The deployment and adoption of broadband technology has
resulted in enhanced economic development and public safety
for communities across the Nation, improved health care and
educational opportunities, and a better quality of life for
all Americans.
(2) Continued progress in the deployment and adoption of
broadband technology is vital to ensuring that our Nation
remains competitive and continues to create business and job
growth.
(3) Improving Federal data on the deployment and adoption
of broadband service will assist in the development of
broadband technology across all regions of the Nation.
(4) The Federal Government should also recognize and
encourage complementary state efforts to improve the quality
and usefulness of broadband data and should encourage and
support the partnership of the public and private sectors in
the continued growth of broadband services and information
technology for the residents and businesses of the Nation.
SEC. 3. IMPROVING FEDERAL DATA ON BROADBAND.
(a) Improving FCC Broadband Data.--Within 120 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications
Commission shall issue an order in WC docket No. 07-38 which
shall, at a minimum--
(1) revise or update, if determined necessary, the existing
definitions of advanced telecommunications capability, or
broadband;
(2) establish a new definition of second generation
broadband to reflect a data rate that is not less than the
data rate required to reliably transmit full-motion, high-
definition video; and
(3) revise its Form 477 reporting requirements to require
filing entities to report broadband connections and second
generation broadband connections by 5-digit postal zip code
plus 4-digit location.
(b) Exception.--The Commission shall exempt an entity from
the reporting requirements of subsection (a)(3) if the
Commission determines that a compliance by that entity with
the requirements is cost prohibitive, as defined by the
Commission.
(c) Improving Section 706 Inquiry.--Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 157 nt) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``regularly'' in subsection (b) and
inserting ``annually'';
(2) by redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (e); and
(3) by inserting after subsection (b) the following:
``(c) Measurement of Extent of Deployment.--In determining
under subsection (b) whether advanced telecommunications
capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable
and timely fashion, the Commission shall consider data
collected using 5-digit postal zip code plus 4-digit
location.
``(d) Demographic Information for Unserved Areas.--As part
of the inquiry required by subsection (b), the Commission
shall, using 5-digit postal zip code plus 4-digit location
information, compile a list of geographical areas that are
not served by any provider of advanced telecommunications
capability (as defined by section 706(c)(1) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 157 nt)) and to the
extent that data from the Census Bureau is available,
determine, for each such unserved area--
``(1) the population;
``(2) the population density; and
``(3) the average per capita income.'';
(4) by inserting ``an evolving level of'' after
``technology,'' in paragraph (1) of subsection (e), as
redesignated.
(d) Improving Census Data on Broadband.--The Secretary of
Commerce, in consultation with the Federal Communications
Commission, shall expand the American Community Survey
conducted by the Bureau of the Census to elicit information
for residential households, including those located on native
lands, to determine whether persons at such households own or
use a computer at that address, whether persons at that
address subscribe to Internet service and, if so, whether
such persons subscribe to dial-up or broadband Internet
service at that address.
SEC. 4. STUDY ON ADDITIONAL BROADBAND METRICS AND STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a
study to consider and evaluate additional broadband metrics
or standards that may be used by industry and the
[[Page S6861]]
Federal Government to provide users with more accurate
information about the cost and capability of their broadband
connection, and to better compare the deployment and
penetration of broadband in the United States with other
countries. At a minimum, such study shall consider potential
standards or metrics that may be used--
(1) to calculate the average price per megabyte of
broadband offerings;
(2) to reflect the average actual speed of broadband
offerings compared to advertised potential speeds;
(3) to compare the availability and quality of broadband
offerings in the United States with the availability and
quality of broadband offerings in other industrialized
nations, including countries that are members of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; and
(4) to distinguish between complementary and substitutable
broadband offerings in evaluating deployment and penetration.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit a
report to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on
Energy and Commerce on the results of the study, with
recommendations for how industry and the Federal
Communications Commission can use such metrics and
comparisons to improve the quality of broadband data and to
better evaluate the deployment and penetration of comparable
broadband service at comparable rates across all regions of
the Nation.
SEC. 5. STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF BROADBAND SPEED AND PRICE ON
SMALL BUSINESSES.
(a) In General.--The Small Business Administration Office
of Advocacy shall conduct a study evaluating the impact of
broadband speed and price on small businesses.
(b) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Office shall submit a report to
the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, the Senate Committee on Small Business and
Entrepreneurship, the House of Representatives Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and the House of Representatives
Committee on Small Business on the results of the study,
including--
(1) a survey of broadband speeds available to small
businesses;
(2) a survey of the cost of broadband speeds available to
small businesses;
(3) a survey of the type of broadband technology used by
small businesses; and
(4) any policy recommendations that may improve small
businesses access to comparable broadband services at
comparable rates in all regions of the Nation.
SEC. 6. ENCOURAGING STATE INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE BROADBAND.
(a) Purposes.--The purposes of any grant under subsection
(b) are--
(1) to ensure that all citizens and businesses in a State
have access to affordable and reliable broadband service;
(2) to achieve improved technology literacy, increased
computer ownership, and home broadband use among such
citizens and businesses;
(3) to establish and empower local grassroots technology
teams in each State to plan for improved technology use
across multiple community sectors; and
(4) to establish and sustain an environment ripe for
broadband services and information technology investment.
(b) Establishment of State Broadband Data and Development
Grant Program.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Commerce shall award
grants, taking into account the results of the peer review
process under subsection (d), to eligible entities for the
development and implementation of statewide initiatives to
identify and track the availability and adoption of broadband
services within each State.
(2) Competitive basis.--Any grant under subsection (b)
shall be awarded on a competitive basis.
(c) Eligibility.--To be eligible to receive a grant under
subsection (b), an eligible entity shall--
(1) submit an application to the Secretary of Commerce, at
such time, in such manner, and containing such information as
the Secretary may require; and
(2) contribute matching non-Federal funds in an amount
equal to not less than 20 percent of the total amount of the
grant.
(d) Peer Review; Nondisclosure.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall by regulation require
appropriate technical and scientific peer review of
applications made for grants under this section.
(2) Review procedures.--The regulations required under
paragraph (1) shall require that any technical and scientific
peer review group--
(A) be provided a written description of the grant to be
reviewed; and
(B) provide the results of any review by such group to the
Secretary of Commerce.
(C) certify that such group will enter into voluntary
nondisclosure agreements as necessary to prevent the
unauthorized disclosure of confidential and proprietary
information provided by broadband service providers in
connection with projects funded by any such grant.
(e) Use of Funds.--A grant awarded to an eligible entity
under subsection (b) shall be used--
(1) to provide a baseline assessment of broadband service
deployment in each State;
(2) to identify and track--
(A) areas in each State that have low levels of broadband
service deployment;
(B) the rate at which residential and business users adopt
broadband service and other related information technology
services; and
(C) possible suppliers of such services;
(3) to identify barriers to the adoption by individuals and
businesses of broadband service and related information
technology services, including whether or not--
(A) the demand for such services is absent; and
(B) the supply for such services is capable of meeting the
demand for such services;
(4) to identify the speeds of broadband connections made
available to individuals and businesses within the State,
and, at a minimum, to rely on the data rate benchmarks for
broadband and second generation broadband identified by the
Federal Communications Commission to promote greater
consistency of data among the States;
(5) to create and facilitate in each county or designated
region in a State a local technology planning team--
(A) with members representing a cross section of the
community, including representatives of business,
telecommunications labor organizations, K-12 education,
health care, libraries, higher education, community-based
organizations, local government, tourism, parks and
recreation, and agriculture; and
(B) which shall--
(i) benchmark technology use across relevant community
sectors;
(ii) set goals for improved technology use within each
sector; and
(iii) develop a tactical business plan for achieving its
goals, with specific recommendations for online application
development and demand creation;
(6) to work collaboratively with broadband service
providers and information technology companies to encourage
deployment and use, especially in unserved and underserved
areas, through the use of local demand aggregation, mapping
analysis, and the creation of market intelligence to improve
the business case for providers to deploy;
(7) to establish programs to improve computer ownership and
Internet access for unserved and underserved populations;
(8) to collect and analyze detailed market data concerning
the use and demand for broadband service and related
information technology services;
(9) to facilitate information exchange regarding the use
and demand for broadband services between public and private
sectors; and
(10) to create within each State a geographic inventory map
of broadband service, and where feasible second generation
broadband service, which shall--
(A) identify gaps in such service through a method of
geographic information system mapping of service availability
at the census block level; and
(B) provide a baseline assessment of statewide broadband
deployment in terms of households with high-speed
availability.
(f) Participation Limit.--For each State, an eligible
entity may not receive a new grant under this section to fund
the activities described in subsection (d) within such State
if such organization obtained prior grant awards under this
section to fund the same activities in that State in each of
the previous 4 consecutive years.
(g) Reporting.--The Secretary of Commerce shall--
(1) require each recipient of a grant under subsection (b)
to submit a report on the use of the funds provided by the
grant; and
(2) create a web page on the Department of Commerce web
site that aggregates relevant information made available to
the public by grant recipients, including, where appropriate,
hypertext links to any geographic inventory maps created by
grant recipients under subsection (e)(10).
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Eligible Entity.--The term ``eligible entity'' means a
non-profit organization that is selected by a State to work
in partnership with State agencies and private sector
partners in identifying and tracking the availability and
adoption of broadband services within each State.
(2) Nonprofit Organization.--The term ``nonprofit
organization'' means an organization--
(A) described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such
Code;
(B) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the
benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or individual;
(C) that has an established competency and proven record of
working with public and private sectors to accomplish
widescale deployment and adoption of broadband services and
information technology; and
(D) the board of directors of which is not composed of a
majority of individuals who are also employed by, or
otherwise associated with, any Federal, State, or local
government or any Federal, State, or local agency.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $40,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
(j) No Regulatory Authority.--Nothing in this section shall
be construed as giving any public or private entity
established or affected by this Act any regulatory
jurisdiction or oversight authority over providers of
broadband services or information technology.
[[Page S6862]]
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 1493. A bill to promote innovation and basic research in advanced
information and communications technologies that will enhance or
facilitate the availability and affordability of advanced
communications services to all Americans; to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, the telecommunications industry started in
this country as a series of wires criss-crossing the country to provide
simple telegraph service. The telegraph allowed people to communicate
from coast to coast in a matter of minutes, which was a marked
improvement over the days required to deliver postal correspondence via
the pony express. The industry quickly evolved from those initial
telegraph lines with Alexander Graham Bell's invention of the
telephone. This revolutionized telecommunications and created a multi-
billion dollar industry.
Today, telecommunications accounts for 3 percent of this country's
gross domestic income, or roughly $335 billion. It employs over 1.25
million U.S. workers. The industry is a critical driver of U.S.
economic growth and innovation. Historically, advances in
telecommunications resulted from AT&T's steady funding of Bell
Laboratories, the world-famous research facility that discovered the
transistor, the laser, radar and sonar, digital signal processors,
cellular telephone technology, and data-networking technology. Indeed,
research in this last field, data-networking, is the basis of the 21st
century's greatest resource, the Internet.
However, today, the pace of innovation in the United States is no
longer as swift or as certain. For example, much of the world's
wireless technologies come from Europe, and many of the handsets are
designed and manufactured in other countries like China and South
Korea. Part of the problem is the decline of Bell Labs, but financial
pressures from Wall Street to perform in the short-term are also partly
to blame. Companies can no longer afford to invest in basic,
fundamental telecommunications research with project horizons beyond 5
years. Unless we can reverse this trend, I fear that the United States
may fall permanently behind in the telecommunications innovation race.
That is why I am here today, to introduce the advanced Information
and Communications Technology Research Act. By rededicating our efforts
to the pursuit of innovation through basic, fundamental research, we
can begin to restore our Nation's historic leadership in this critical
industry. Toward that end, the legislation that I am introducing today
will establish a telecommunications program within the National Science
Foundation to focus research on the development of affordable advanced
communications services in America. It would authorize $40 million in
fiscal year 2008, increasing in $5 million increments to reach $60
million in FY 2012. The bill would also establish a Federal Advanced
Information and Communications Technology Board within NSF to advise
the program on appropriate research topics. Finally, the bill would
accelerate efforts initiated almost 4 years ago to promote spectrum
sharing technologies. It would require NTIA and the FCC to initiate a
pilot program within 1 year that would make a small portion of spectrum
available for shared use between Federal and nonFederal government
users.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this legislation in
the weeks ahead.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1493
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 ``Advanced Information and
Communications Technology Research Act''.
SEC. 2. SPECTRUM-SHARING INNOVATION TESTBED.
(a) Spectrum-sharing Plan.--Within 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Federal Communications Commission
and the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications
and Information, in coordination with other Federal agencies,
shall--
(1) develop a plan to increase sharing of spectrum between
Federal and non-Federal government users; and
(2) establish a pilot program for implementation of the
plan.
(b) Technical Specifications.--The Commission and the
Assistant Secretary--
(1) shall each identify a segment of spectrum of equal
bandwidth within their respective jurisdiction for the pilot
program that is approximately 10 megaHertz in width for
assignment on a shared basis to Federal and non-Federal
government use; and
(2) may take the spectrum for the pilot program from bands
currently allocated on either an exclusive or shared basis.
(c) Report.--The Commission and the Assistant Secretary
shall transmit a report to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives
Committee on Energy and Commerce 2 years after the inception
of the pilot program describing the results of the program
and suggesting appropriate procedures for expanding the
program as appropriate.
SEC. 3. TELECOMMUNICATIONS INNOVATION ACCELERATION.
(a) Program.--In order to accelerate the pace of innovation
with respect to telecommunications services (as defined in
section 3(46) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
153(46)), equipment, and technology, the Director of the
National Institute of Standards and Technology shall--
(1) establish a program linked to the goals and objectives
of the measurement laboratories, to be known as the
`Telecommunications Standards and Technology Acceleration
Research Program', to support and promote innovation in the
United States through high-risk, high-reward
telecommunications research; and
(2) set aside, from funds available to the measurement
laboratories, an amount equal to not less than 8 percent of
the funds available to the Institute each fiscal year for
such Program.
(b) External Funding.--The Director shall ensure that at
least 80 percent of the funds available for such Program
shall be used to award competitive, merit-reviewed grants,
cooperative agreements, or contracts to public or private
entities, including businesses and universities. In selecting
entities to receive such assistance, the Director shall
ensure that the project proposed by an entity has scientific
and technical merit and that any resulting intellectual
property shall vest in a United States entity that can
commercialize the technology in a timely manner. Each
external project shall involve at least one small or medium-
sized business and the Director shall give priority to joint
ventures between small or medium-sized businesses and
educational institutions. Any grant shall be for a period not
to exceed 3 years.
(c) Competitions.--The Director shall solicit proposals
annually to address areas of national need for high-risk,
high-reward telecommunications research, as identified by the
Director.
(d) Annual Report.--Each year the Director shall issue an
annual report describing the program's activities, including
include a description of the metrics upon which grant funding
decisions were made in the previous fiscal year, any proposed
changes to those metrics, metrics for evaluating the success
of ongoing and completed grants, and an evaluation of ongoing
and completed grants. The first annual report shall include
best practices for management of programs to stimulate high-
risk, high-reward telecommunications research.
(e) Administrative Expenses.--No more than 5 percent of the
finding available to the program may be used for
administrative expenses.
(f) High-Risk, High-Reward Telecommunications Research
Defined.--In this section, the term ``high-risk, high-reward
telecommunications research'' means research that--
(1) has the potential for yielding results with far-ranging
or wide-ranging implications;
(2) addresses critical national needs related to
measurement standards and technology; and
(3) is too novel or spans too diverse a range of
disciplines to fare well in the traditional peer review
process.
SEC. 4. ADVANCED COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR ALL AMERICANS.
The Director of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology shall continue to support research and support
standards development in advanced information and
communications technologies focused on enhancing or
facilitating the availability and affordability of advanced
communications services to all Americans, in order to
implement the Institute's responsibilities under section
2(c)(12) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(c)(12)). The Director shall
support intramural research and cooperative research with
institutions of higher education (as defined in section
101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)) and industry.
SEC. 5. ADVANCED INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH.
(a) Information and Communications Technology Research.--
The Director of the National Science Foundation shall
establish a program of basic research in advanced information
and communications technologies focused on enhancing or
facilitating the availability and affordability of advanced
communications services to all Americans.
[[Page S6863]]
In developing and carrying out the program, the Director
shall consult with the Board established under subsection
(b).
(b) Federal Advanced Information and Communications
Technology Research Board.--There is established within the
National Science Foundation a Federal Advanced Information
and Communications Technology Board which shall advise the
Director of the National Science Foundation in carrying out
the program authorized by subsection (a). The Board Shall be
composed of individuals with expertise in information and
communications technologies, including representatives from
the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, the
Department of Defense, and representatives from industry and
educational institutions.
(c) Grant Program.--The Director, in consultation with the
Board, shall award grants for basic research into advanced
information and communications technologies that will
contribute to enhancing or facilitating the availability and
affordability of advanced communications services to all
Americans. Areas of research to be supported through these
grants include--
(1) affordable broadband access, including wireless
technologies;
(2) network security and reliability;
(3) communications interoperability;
(4) networking protocols and architectures, including
resilience to outages or attacks;
(5) trusted software;
(6) privacy;
(7) nanoelectronics for communications applications;
(8) low-power communications electronics;
(9) such other related areas as the Director, in
consultation with the Board, finds appropriate; and
(10) implementation of equitable access to national
advanced fiber optic research and educational networks,
including access in noncontiguous States.
(d) Centers.--The Director shall award multiyear grants,
subject to the availability of appropriations, to
institutions of higher education (as defined in section
101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)), nonprofit research institutions affiliated with
institutions of higher education, or consortia thereof to
establish multidisciplinary Centers for Communications
Research. The purpose of the Centers shall be to generate
innovative approaches to problems in communications and
information technology research, including the research areas
described in subsection (c). Institutions of higher
education, nonprofit research institutions affiliated with
institutions of higher education, or consortia receiving such
grants may partner with 1 or more government laboratories or
for-profit entities, or other institutions of higher
education or nonprofit research institutions.
(e) Applications.--The Director, in consultation with the
Board, shall establish criteria for the award of grants under
subsections (c) and (d). Grants shall be awarded under the
program on a merit-reviewed competitive basis. The Director
shall give priority to grants that offer the potential for
revolutionary rather than evolutionary breakthroughs.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the National Science Foundation to
carry out this section--
(1) $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(2) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(3) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(4) $55,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
(5) $60,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
______
By Mr. DOMENICI (for himself, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Baucus,
Ms. Collins, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Bingaman, Ms.
Stabenow, Mr. Schumer, and Mr. Durbin):
S. 1494. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize
the special diabetes programs for Type I diabetes and Indians under
that Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator
Dorgan, to introduce a bill to reauthorize and expand two very
important public health programs created by the Balanced Budget Act of
1997; The Special Diabetes Program for Indians and the Special Funding
Program for Type I Diabetes Research. I want to thank my colleagues,
Senator Inouye, Senator Baucus, Senator Collins, Senator Lincoln,
Senator Hatch, and Senator Bingaman for joining us as original
cosponsors of this bill. This type of bipartisan support clearly shows
that addressing this disease and its consequences is an important
health priority for our Nation.
Diabetes is one of the most serious and devastating health problems
of our time. The American Diabetes Association estimates that 20.8
million Americans have diabetes; more than 7 percent of our population.
The number of U.S. adults with diagnosed diabetes has increased by more
than 60 percent since 1991 and is projected to more than double by
2050. It ranks as the sixth leading cause of death in America. This has
serious national implications; it is overwhelming health systems in the
states and the Nation.
Although diabetes occurs in people of all ethnicities, the diabetes
epidemic is particularly acute in our Native American populations.
Among some tribes, as many as 50 percent of the adult population have
the disease. That is why during the negotiations on the 1997 Balanced
Budget Act, I helped craft an agreement to finance diabetes programs of
the Indian Health Service and help raise the profile of tribal health
programs. The Special Diabetes Program for Indians began with funding
of $30 million annually for 5 years and was later expanded to $150
million a year. This funding has been used widely in Indian country,
including among the Navajo Nation and the 19 Pueblos in New Mexico.
Federally supported treatment and prevention programs are showing
real results in the Native American populations. The current funding
has established almost 400 new diabetes treatment and prevention
programs in Native communities. It has helped to provide critical
resources such as medications and therapies, clinical exams,
screenings, and resources to prevent complications. It has provided
primary prevention activities such as physical fitness programs,
medical nutrition therapy, wellness activities, and programs that
target children and youth. The experiences of these programs have
provided many important lessons learned that will benefit other
minority communities and all people affected by diabetes.
Despite all the positive results we have seen from these efforts,
there is still much more work to be done. I have traveled extensively
on the Navajo reservation and other parts of Indian country and seen
those who still need help. I have visited the dialysis centers and met
with those who are suffering from the effects of this disease. Due to
the prevalence of this problem, it will take years for us to achieve
our ultimate goal of reducing and eliminating diabetes and its
complications. But, unless Congress reauthorizes and expands this
program, the funding for these efforts and activities will end next
year. We can't let that happen. The Special Diabetes Program for
Indians has made an enormous and substantial impact on the problem of
diabetes in Indian communities. The loss of funding now would be
devastating. We must continue to focus specific resources to address
the epidemic of diabetes in the Native American communities. That is
why the bill we are introducing today will reauthorize the Special
Diabetes Program for Indians for an additional 5 years and increase the
funding from $150 million to $200 million each year. This will provide
a billion dollars over the next 5 years for this program, $250 million
more than we are currently authorized to spend. Reauthorization of this
vital program will help save lives. It is the right thing to do and it
is a smart investment of our health care dollars.
In addition to the reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program
for Indians, this bill will also reauthorize another important tool in
our battle against diabetes, the Special Funding Program for Type I
Diabetes Research. Like the Indian program, this program is set to
expire next year, and this bill will provide an authorization for an
additional 5 years and increase the funding from $150 million to $200
million each year.
The Type I Diabetes research program which was also created in 1997
Balanced Budget Act has allowed the Federal Government to make dramatic
advances in research and treatment since its inception. This funding
has helped support research into the identification of genes that
increase susceptibility to diabetes. It has helped with the development
of therapies that have helped slow the progression and in some cases
even reverse the progression of this disease. And it has helped develop
tools and methods that help people manage the disease long term.
Again though, there is still much more work to be done. Continued
investment in this program will help to maintain support for research
that is truly helping those who are living with diabetes and help
prevent the onset of diabetes in others. The Federal investment in
research has produced tangible
[[Page S6864]]
results that I believe justify its continued support. Diabetes is
taking too heavy a toll on too many Americans and their families.
Continued funding is vital to the continuation of our fight against
diabetes.
The prevention and treatment of diabetes has improved greatly over
the past decade and I believe it is in large part due to the funding
and research accomplished through these two programs. Complications of
diabetes can be prevented and the costs of this disease to our society
can be contained. Research, early detection and treatment, however, are
the keys. I hope that Congress will join together to reauthorize these
programs and also provide to them the increase in funding that they
need to keep making advances.
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. 1494
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAMS FOR
TYPE I DIABETES AND INDIANS.
(a) Special Diabetes Programs for Type I Diabetes.--Section
330B(b)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-
2(b)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.''.
(b) Special Diabetes Programs for Indians.--Section
330C(c)(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254c-
3(c)(2)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) $200,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2009 through
2013.''.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague
from New Mexico in introducing legislation to reauthorize two very
important efforts to address diabetes prevention and treatment and
research: the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, which is
administered by the Indian Health Service's Division of Diabetes
Treatment and Prevention, and the Special Diabetes Programs for
Children with Type I Diabetes Research, which is administered by the
National Institutes of Health.
The Indian Affairs Committee held an oversight hearing on diabetes in
Indian country this past February. Diabetes is an illness that afflicts
Native Americans more than any other ethnic/racial group in the United
States, and some tribes have the onerous distinction of having the
highest diabetes rate in the world. Indian people are 318 percent more
likely to die from diabetes than the general population.
The Special Diabetes Program for Indians is recognized as the most
comprehensive rural system of care for diabetes in the United States.
Grants under this program have been awarded by the Indian Health
Service to nearly 400 IHS, tribal and urban Indian programs within the
12 IHS Areas in 35 States. The program serves approximately 116,000
Native American people with various prevention and treatment services.
While each of the Special Diabetes Program grants reflects the unique
tribal community that conducts the program, here are some examples of
the kinds of activities the program provides: teaching Indians living
with diabetes how to examine and take care of their feet; helping young
mothers learn how to eat healthy using commodity foods issued under the
USDA's Food Distribution Program on Indian reservations, and how to
learn the value of breastfeeding their babies to reduce the incidence
of diabetes as the children grow older; enabling diabetics to have
access to regular eye screening exams; helping Native Americans know
the connection between eating healthy and preventing diabetes by
adapting materials of the National Institutes of Health-funded clinical
trial, called the Diabetes Prevention Program, to be culturally-
appropriate; promoting physical activity in the reservation
environment, such as building walking trails and displaying signs that
say, ``Walk, don't take the elevator;'' and enabling Indian Health
Service, tribal and urban Indian health programs to offer new
medications for diabetes, such as glitazone, which helps increase
insulin sensitivity.
Reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians is both a
legislative and a medical priority for Indian country. I urge my
colleagues to support the measure that we are introducing today.
______
By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Wyden):
S. 1495. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify
the application of the tonnage tax on vessels operating in the dual
United States domestic and foreign trades, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, foreign registered ships now carry 97
percent of the imports and exports moving in the U.S. international
trade. These foreign vessels are held to lower standards than U.S.
registered ships, and are, virtually, untaxed. Therefore, their costs
of operation are lower than U.S. ship operating costs, which explains
their 97 percent market share.
Three years ago, in order to help level the playing field for U.S.
flag ships that compete in international trade, Congress enacted, under
the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, Public Law 108-357, Subchapter
R, a ``tonnage tax'' that is based on the tonnage of a vessel, rather
than taxing the U.S. flag ship's international income at a 35 percent
corporate income tax rate. However, during the House and the Senate
conference, language was included, which states that a U.S. vessel
cannot use the tonnage tax on international income if that vessel also
operates in U.S. domestic commerce for more than 30 days per year.
This 30-day limitation dramatically limits the availability of the
tonnage tax for those U.S. ships that operate in both domestic and
international trade and, accordingly, severely hinders their
competitiveness in foreign commerce. It is important to recognize that
ships operating in U.S. domestic trade already have significant cost
disadvantages vis-a-vis U.S. ships operating in international trade.
Specifically, U.S-flag ships that operate solely in international
trade: 1. are built in foreign shipyards at one-third U.S. shipyard
prices; 2. receive $2.6 million per ship per year in Federal maritime
security payments in return for making these vessels available to the
Department of Defense in time of national emergency; and 3. are owned
by U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations. By contrast, U.S. flag
ships that operate both in international trade a domestic trade are: 1.
built in higher priced U.S. shipyards; 2. do not receive maritime
security payments, even when operated in international trade, but have
the same commitments to the Department of Defense; and 3. are owned by
U.S.-based American corporations. Furthermore, the inability of these
domestic operators to use the tonnage tax for their international
service is an unnecessary burden on their competitive position in
foreign commerce.
When windows of opportunity present themselves in international
trade, American tax policy and maritime policy should facilitate the
participation of these American-built ships. Instead, the 30-day limit
makes them ineligible to use the tonnage tax, and further handicaps
American vessels when competing for international cargo. Denying the
tonnage tax to coastwise qualified ships further stymies the operation
of American built ships in international commerce, and further
exacerbates America's 97 percent reliance on foreign ships to carry its
international cargo.
These concerns were of such sufficient importance that in December
2006, the Congress repealed the 30-day limit on domestic trading but
only for approximately 50 ships operating in the Great Lakes. These
ships primarily operate in domestic trade on the Great Lakes, but also
carry cargo between the United States and Canada in international trade
Section 415 of P.L. 109-432, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of
2006.
The identifiable universe of remaining ships other than the Great
Lakes ships that operate in domestic trade, but that may also operate
temporarily in international trade, totals 13 U.S. flag vessels. These
13 ships normally
[[Page S6865]]
operate in domestic trades that involve Washington, Oregon, California,
Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, Mississippi, and Louisiana. In the interest of
providing equity to the U.S. corporations that own and operate these 13
vessels, my bill would repeal the tonnage tax 30-day limit on domestic
operations and enable these vessels to utilize the tonnage tax on their
international income so they receive the same treatment as other U.S.
flag international operators. I stress that, under my bill, these ships
will continue to pay the normal 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate on
their domestic income.
Repeal of the tonnage tax's 30-day limit on domestic operations is a
necessary step toward providing tax equity between U.S. flag and
foreign flag vessels. I strongly urge the tax writing committees of the
Congress to give this legislation their expedited consideration and
approval. 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. 1495
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION OF THE TONNAGE TAX
ON VESSELS OPERATING IN THE DUAL UNITED STATES
DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN TRADES,.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 1355 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definitions and
special rules) is amended to read as follows:
``(f) Effect of Operating a Qualifying Vessel in the Dual
United States Domestic and Foreign Trades.--For purposes of
this subchapter--
``(1) an electing corporation shall be treated as
continuing to use a qualifying vessel in the United States
foreign trade during any period of use in the United States
domestic trade, and
``(2) gross income from such United States domestic trade
shall not be excluded under section 1357(a), but shall not be
taken into account for purposes of section 1353(b)(1)(B) or
for purposes of section 1356 in connection with the
application of section 1357 or 1358.''.
(b) Regulatory Authority for Allocation of Credits, Income,
and Deductions.--Section 1358 of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 (relating to allocation of credits, income, and
deductions) is amended--
(1) by striking ``in accordance with this subsection'' in
subsection (c) and inserting ``to the extent provided in such
regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe
regulations consistent with the provisions of this subchapter
for the purpose of allocating gross income, deductions, and
credits between or among qualifying shipping activities and
other activities of a taxpayer.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 1355(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
is amended by striking ``exclusively''.
(2) Section 1355(b)(1)(B) of such Code is amended by
striking ``as a qualifying vessel'' and inserting ``in the
transportation of goods or passengers''.
(d) 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. CARDIN:
S. 1497. A bill to promote the energy independence of the United
States, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, for the sake of our security, economy and
environment, America needs a comprehensive energy policy that is
independent of foreign energy sources and weans America off of fossil
fuels.
Last year, I introduced comprehensive energy legislation that would
address the many challenges across our economy to achieving sustainable
energy independence. I am very hopeful that this Congress will soon
take steps to bring forward a comprehensive energy bill that will
address many of the areas I believe are essential to this effort. I
have cosponsored many of the individual planks of this comprehensive
effort, and today I want to address how we can ensure that this energy
policy does not have an expiration date or fall short of its laudable
goals.
Today I am introducing the Energy Independence Act.
The Energy Independence Act will deliver energy independence to
Americans by providing an energy plan that has the capacity to change
with innovation. My bill will ensure that our energy policy will
increase the efficiency and decrease the environmental impact of
America's energy policy, and encourage our energy policy to adapt to
our needs and abilities.
My bill will set a congressional goal of achieving energy
independence by 2017. ``Energy independence'' is defined as meeting all
but 10 percent of our energy needs from domestic energy sources. The
bill will also set a congressional goal of achieving independence from
fossil fuels by 2037.
My bill will also create a Blue Ribbon Energy Commission, which will
meet every two years starting in 2009, to evaluate our progress in
efforts to become energy independent, and to recommend changes to be
made in reports to Congress.
These are achievable goals.
Petroleum, mostly used for transportation, accounts for 84 percent of
our imported energy. Transportation accounts for roughly 28 percent of
our energy use. I support raising CAFE standards, and have cosponsored
S. 357, legislation by Senator Feinstein which would raise these
standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2019. Studies show that raising
CAFE standards to 40 miles per gallon would save over 36 billion
gallons of gas per year, and creating efficiency standards for
replacement tires would save more than 7 billion barrels of oil over
the next 50 years. Creating incentives for commuting by train or bus,
and funding upgrades and new starts in public transit services, such as
the purple line of the DC metro, will also make a difference--in an
average year, the round trip to work uses over 250 gallons of gas and
creates about 5,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.
As part of a comprehensive energy bill we should also be mindful of
the long-term effects of our energy policy on the environment, our
landscape, and our health. I cosponsored S. 309, legislation by
Senators Sanders and Boxer that provides for an economy-wide emissions
cap and trade program. Enacting an economy-wide cap and trade program
will ensure that our energy policy will be truly sustainable.
America currently gets only 6.3 percent of its energy from renewable
energy sources. Current ideas for addressing this problem focus on
trying to make the large up-front investment in infrastructure required
to produce renewable energy less daunting, by creating a long-term
market for renewable energy through increasing the Federal Government's
use of renewables and creating a Federal renewable portfolio standard
to make utilities offer renewable energy to American consumers, and by
making incentives like the renewable production tax credit permanent. I
support creating Federal renewable portfolio standard, and will
cosponsor legislation to be offered by Senator Bingaman to do so. I
have also cosponsored S. 590, Senator Smith's legislation that would
extend solar tax incentives through 2016, while expanding these
incentives to cover more of the up-front investment required to use
solar energy.
In order to get to energy independence we must substantially increase
our investment in energy research. I cosponsored S. 761, Senator Reid's
America COMPETES Act, which will increase R&D funding for the
Department of Energy, increase the DOE's emphasis on advanced energy
research to overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers
to the development of energy technologies, and implement
recommendations made by the National Academies of Sciences report
Rising Above a Gathering Storm.
I will be advocating other areas of energy policy reform, including
increasing funding for weatherization, providing incentives for
telecommuting, and providing additional energy efficiency standards for
appliances.
We can do better, and the one overarching theme in the quest for a
sustainable, long-term energy policy is the need to be able to be
flexible and change our energy policy to suit our needs, capacity,
research and development. My bill will give us the ability to provide
long-term, bipartisan solutions that will address our energy policy
going forward, and give us the flexibility, and the considered
solutions of experts, to give the American people the energy policy
they deserve.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
[[Page S6866]]
S. 1497
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 ``Energy Independence Act of
2007''.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE AND GOALS.
The purpose of this Act is to provide support for projects
and activities to facilitate the energy independence of the
United States so as to ensure that--
(1) all but 10 percent of the energy needs of the United
States are supplied by domestic energy sources by calendar
year 2017; and
(2) all but 20 percent of the energy needs of the United
States are supplied by non-fossil fuel sources by calendar
year 2037.
SEC. 3. ENERGY POLICY COMMISSION.
(a) Establishment.--
(1) In general.--There is established a commission, to be
known as the ``National Commission on Energy Independence''
(referred to in this section as the ``Commission'').
(2) Membership.--The Commission shall be composed of 15
members, of whom--
(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President;
(B) 3 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate;
(C) 3 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
Senate;
(D) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives; and
(E) 3 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives.
(3) Co-chairpersons.--
(A) In general.--The President shall designate 2 co-
chairpersons from among the members of the Commission
appointed.
(B) Political affiliation.--The co-chairpersons designated
under subparagraph (A) shall not both be affiliated with the
same political party.
(4) Deadline for appointment.--Members of the Commission
shall be appointed not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act.
(5) Term; vacancies.--
(A) Term.--A member of the Commission shall be appointed
for the life of the Commission.
(B) Vacancies.--Any vacancy in the Commission--
(i) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
(ii) shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment.
(b) Purpose.--The Commission shall conduct a comprehensive
review of the energy policy of the United States by--
(1) reviewing relevant analyses of the current and long-
term energy policy of, and conditions in, the United States;
(2) identifying problems that may threaten the achievement
by the United States of long-term energy policy goals,
including energy independence;
(3) analyzing potential solutions to problems that threaten
the long-term ability of the United States to achieve those
energy policy goals; and
(4) providing recommendations that will ensure, to the
maximum extent practicable, that the energy policy goals of
the United States are achieved.
(c) Report and Recommendations.--
(1) In general.--Not later than December 31 of each of
calendar years 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015, the Commission
shall submit to Congress and the President a report on the
progress of United States in meeting the long-term energy
policy goal of energy independence, including a detailed
statement of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Commission.
(2) Legislative language.--If a recommendation submitted
under paragraph (1) involves legislative action, the report
shall include proposed legislative language to carry out the
action.
(d) Commission Personnel Matters.--
(1) Staff and director.--The Commission shall have a staff
headed by an Executive Director.
(2) Staff appointment.--The Executive Director may appoint
such personnel as the Executive Director and the Commission
determine to be appropriate.
(3) Experts and consultants.--With the approval of the
Commission, the Executive Director may procure temporary and
intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code.
(4) Federal agencies.--
(A) Detail of government employees.--
(i) In general.--Upon the request of the Commission, the
head of any Federal agency may detail, without reimbursement,
any of the personnel of the Federal agency to the Commission
to assist in carrying out the duties of the Commission.
(ii) Nature of detail.--Any detail of a Federal employee
under clause (i) shall not interrupt or otherwise affect the
civil service status or privileges of the Federal employee.
(B) Technical assistance.--Upon the request of the
Commission, the head of a Federal agency shall provide such
technical assistance to the Commission as the Commission
determines to be necessary to carry out the duties of the
Commission.
(e) Resources.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall have reasonable
access to materials, resources, statistical data, and such
other information from Executive agencies as the Commission
determines to be necessary to carry out the duties of the
Commission.
(2) Form of requests.--The co-chairpersons of the
Commission shall make requests for access described in
paragraph (1) in writing, as necessary.
______
By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Vitter, Mr. Lieberman, Mr.
Lautenberg, and Mr. Menendez):
S. 1498. A bill to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to prohibit
the import, export, transportation, sale, receipt, acquisition, or
purchase in interstate or foreign commerce of any live animal of any
prohibited wildlife species, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Captive
Primate Safety Act. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Vitter,
Lieberman, Lautenberg, and Menendez. An almost identical bill passed
the Senate by unanimous consent in the 109th Congress.
This bipartisan bill amends the Lacey Act to prohibit transporting
monkeys, great apes, lemurs, and other nonhuman primates across State
lines for the pet trade, much like the Captive Wildlife Safety Act,
which passed unanimously in 2003, did for tigers and other big cats.
This bill has no impact on trade or transportation of animals for
zoos, medical and other licensed research facilities, or certain other
licensed and regulated entities. The prohibitions in the Lacey Act only
apply to the pet trade.
I am proud that this legislation is supported by the Humane Society
of the United States, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the
American Veterinary Medical Association, Defenders of Wildlife and the
Wildlife Conservation Society and many other organizations.
I look forward to working with all my colleagues to enact this
legislation.
______
By Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. Thune):
S. 1503. A bill to improve domestic fuels security; to the Committee
on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Gas
Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act or Gas
PRICE Act. While chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, I sought to move a similar measure. Unfortunately, my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle managed to block the bill at that time.
Today, motorists are facing record high gas prices and according to
Labor statistics, those higher fuel prices are hurting the national
economy as a whole. Unfortunately, the pain at the pump, the grocery
store, and the shopping mall were predicted long ago and are largely a
function of politicking, rhetoric, and finger pointing, actions that
continue today.
According to Deutsche Bank energy experts Paul Sankey and Rich
Volina, who testified May 15, 2007 before the Senate Energy Committee,
``Anybody who blames record high U.S. gasoline prices on ``gouging'' at
the pump simply reveals their total ignorance of global supply and
demand fundamentals.'' Yet yesterday the House narrowly passed a bill
that; goes just that; goes after so called ``gougers'' while doing
nothing to affect supply.
I am hopeful that my colleagues in the Senate will join me and
quickly pass the bill I am introducing today. Our constituents elected
us to solve problems and make their lives better, not to name call and
demagogue.
I have been talking about the lack of adequate refining supplies for
some years. In May 2004, while chairman of the Committee on Environment
and Public Works, I held a hearing on the environmental issues
regarding oil refining. The committee received testimony about the lack
of adequate refining capacity and the obstacles the industry faced in
order to meet consumer demand.
In a May 2005 speech, then-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan
stated, ``The status of world refining capacity has become worrisome as
well. Of special concern is the need to add adequate coking and
desulphurization capacity to convert the average gravity and sulphur
content of much of the world's crude oil to the lighter and sweeter
needs of product markets, which are increasingly dominated by
transportation fuels that must meet ever-more stringent environmental
requirements.''
The fact of the matter is that, like it or not, the U.S. needs to
increase its
[[Page S6867]]
refining capacity if we are to solve the economic struggles facing
every family.
The bill I am introducing today redefines and broadens our
understanding of a ``refinery'' to be a ``domestic fuels facility.''
Oil has been and will continue to play a major role in the U.S.
economy, but the future of our domestic transportation fuels system
must also include new sources such as ultra-clean syn-fuels derived
from coal and cellulosic ethanol derived from home-grown grasses and
biomass.
Expanding existing domestic fuels facilities like refineries or
constructing new ones face a maze of environmental permitting
challenges. The Gas PRICE Act provides a Governor with the option of
requiring the Federal EPA to provide the state with financial and
technical resources to accomplish the job and establishes a certain
permitting process for all parties. And it does so without waiving
environmental laws and working with local governments.
The public demands increasing supplies of transportation fuel, but
they also expect that fuel to be good for their health and the
environment. To that end, the bill requires the EPA to establish a
demonstration to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch FT diesel and jet
fuel as an emission control strategy. Initial tests have found that FT
diesel emits 25 percent less NOX, nearly 20 percent less
PM1O, and approximately 90 percent less SOX than low sulfur
petroleum diesel. Further, U.S. Air Force tests at Tinker base in my
home state found that blends of FT aircraft fuel reduced particulate
47-90 percent and completely eliminated SOX emissions over
contemporary fuels in use today.
Good concepts in Washington are bad ideas if no one wants them at
home. As a former Mayor of Tulsa, I am a strong believer in local and
state control. The Federal Government should provide incentives to not
mandate on local communities. Increasing clean domestic fuel supplies
is in the nation's security interest, but those facilities can also
provide high paying jobs to people and towns in need. My bill provides
financial incentives to the two most economically distressed
communities in the Nation, towns affected by BRAC and Indian tribes
consider building coal-to-liquids and commercial scale cellulosic
ethanol facilities.
I am very proud that my home state of Oklahoma is a leader in the
development of energy crops for cellulosic biofuels, and specifically
coordinated programs through the Noble Foundation in Ardmore. The key
now is to promote investment in this exciting area, and nothing would
speed the rapid expansion of the cellulosic biofuels industry more than
investment by the Nation's traditional providers of liquid
transportation fuels.
Many integrated oil companies have formed or substantially expanded
their biofuels divisions within the past year to prepare for the
eventuality of cost-competitive cellulosic biofuels. Cellulosic
biorefineries will want to create an assured supply of feedstock and
will enter into long-term contracts with surrounding biomass producers.
One of the incentives for oil companies to invest in exploration is
that their stock prices are affected by their declared proved reserves.
Creating a definition of renewable reserves would create a similar
incentive for them to invest in cellulosic biofuels.
In 1975, Congress directed the SEC to promulgate a definition of
proved reserves. At that time, the SEC based its definition upon
broadly-accepted industry standards established by the Society of
Petroleum Engineers 1978 FASB System. While no broadly
accepted industry standards yet exist for thinking about dedicated
energy crops, industry, growers and agronomists could be brought
together to agree on standards and practices. Agronomists could play a
similar role in estimation of renewable reserves to that of petroleum
engineers in proved reserves by providing independent projections of
biomass yields.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Department of Energy to
accelerate the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands. As
these unconventional fuel sources reach viability, the SEC will be
pressured to develop methodology to incorporate them into its reserves
hierarchy. Given the country's interest in developing renewable
alternatives to fossil fuels, it is logical that the SEC would develop
criteria for the incorporation of biomass feedstock sources into its
hierarchy at the same time.
This is Congress's least expensive way to jumpstart the cellulosic
biofuels industry.
Much has changed in Washington since I was chairman of the
Environment Committee and held hearings on the need to improve our
domestic transportation fuels system. I hope that the new majority
joins me in quickly passing the Gas PRICE Act doing so would be a
material and substantive action toward their stated goal of ``energy
independence'' and would go far beyond more partisan symbolism.
______
By Mr. GREGG (for himself, Mr. Burr, and Mr. Coburn):
S. 1505. A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for
the approval of biosimilars, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, next month the Senate Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions Committee is expected to markup legislation
creating a regulatory pathway for the approval of follow-on biologics,
or ``biosimilars''. I look forward to working with my colleagues on
this important issue and would especially like to thank Senator Hatch
for his leadership in this area.
There are significant differences between small molecule drugs and
larger protein derived therapeutic biologics. These differences are
going to require a much more detailed and a much more complex approval
pathway than the generic drug approval process. To protect patient
safety, the FDA must be empowered to apply rigorous scientific
standards to biosimilars seeking approval, while at the same time
avoiding duplicative testing and unnecessary expense.
Biological products are among the most promising and effective
medicines for the treatment of serious and life-threatening diseases.
Unfortunately these medicines are often very expensive, and current
U.S. law does not provide an abbreviated approval pathway for ``follow-
on'' versions of these innovative products after key patents expire.
Therefore, Congress should act so that patients can have access to less
expensive versions of biologics, just as they do with generic small
molecule drugs.
In addition to the great benefits associated with biologic products,
the American biotech industry has become the world leader in
development of new therapies for serious or life-threatening illnesses.
This will only continue as there are now at least 400 biologics
currently in development. To preserve this incredibly innovative
industry, biotechnology companies need to have a meaningful period of
time to recoup the extraordinary expenses incurred in bringing these
life-saving medicines to market. If not, U.S. based research and
development of new biotech medicines will be threatened.
Therefore, today I am introducing the Affordable Biologics for
Consumers Act of 2007. It requires the FDA develop science-based rules
for approval of biologics on a product-class basis. The legislation
also provides 14 years of data exclusivity for innovator drug
manufacturer products, with an additional 2 years available if the
Secretary approves a new indication for the reference product. This
legislation will ensure that patients have access to safe and
affordable biologics, while protecting innovation and spurring the
development of new life-saving therapies.
I urge my colleagues to join me, and the many patient groups that
have endorsed this legislation, in supporting this crucial piece of
legislation.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to commend our colleagues, Senators
Gregg, Burr, and Coburn, for their introduction today of the Affordable
Biologics for Consumers Act, S. 1505.
As my colleagues are aware, I am the original author with
Representative Henry Waxman of the Drug Price Competition and Patent
Term Restoration Act, a law which gave rise to today's generic drug
industry. And so, I have a long-standing interest in making certain
that consumers have access to affordable medications and that we
provide the appropriate incentives for development of the new products
that are eventually to be copied.
We must rectify the fact that there is no clear pathway for follow-on
copies
[[Page S6868]]
of biological products, such as human growth hormone or insulin, to
take two easy examples. And it must be rectified on a priority basis.
That the Hatch-Waxman law did not cover these biologic products was
not a simple omission. Indeed, the market for biologicals really did
not develop until after enactment of Waxman-Hatch in 1984.
For many years, I have worked toward development of a pathway for
these ``follow-on'' products, but it was not until recently that I
believe we have developed a public consensus that there is the
scientific and regulatory underpinning necessary to write a good law.
Comes now the Gregg-Burr-Coburn bill, which must be seen as an
important contribution to the necessary dialog on follow-on biologics.
The Gregg-Burr-Coburn proposal addresses elements which I believe are
key to any law we enact. First, there must be sufficient incentive for
the development of biologic products. That incentive is tied inherently
to an appropriate protection of the innovator's intellectual property.
And the protection must be for a sufficient length of time to allow
inventors of the molecule and others who have a financial stake in its
development to recoup the substantial time and investment necessary to
invent a biologic. Such protections are key for biotechnology
companies, large and small, but also for universities that conduct much
of the research on new molecules and the other investors who support
that promising research.
Second, we should not create unnecessary barriers to marketing of
lower-cost, successor biologic products. While the law must contemplate
that the follow-on products be subjected to a rigorous scientific
review to ensure they are safe, pure and potent, that review, however,
should be flexible enough to make certain there are not unnecessary
barriers to market entry for the lower-cost alternatives.
Third, past history should inform our decision-making when it can,
but any law we write must reflect the emerging realities of today's
pharmaceutical market.
And, finally, the law must reflect a careful balance. We all want
consumers to have access to more affordable medications, and surely
there is a need to allow patients to buy less expensive biological
products. At the same time, we want to make certain that the
abbreviated pathway for these follow-on biologics contemplates review
of products which are truly follow-ons to the innovators' products, and
not new biologics. This is tied inherently to the standard which is
developed for ``similarity'' of the follow-on to the innovator.
As many are aware, Senators Kennedy, Enzi, Clinton and I have been
meeting for some time to discuss the elements that must be included in
any follow-on biologics legislation. While I have been working on draft
legislation for some time, I have not introduced a proposal pending a
successful conclusion to those discussions. It has been our hope, and
it remains our hope, that our meetings will lead to development of a
consensus document that will provide the basis for the expected HELP
Committee markup on June 13th.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Gregg-Burr-Coburn proposal will
help inform the discussions of we four Senators, and indeed the HELP
Committee's deliberations on this issue. Senators Gregg, Burr and
Coburn have a proven record in contributing greatly to the body of law
we call the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Their bill is a thoughtful and
serious contribution and it is a significant work that this body should
recognize.
______
By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Menendez):
S. 1506. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
modify provisions relating to beach monitoring, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
that would increase protections for the Nation's beaches and the
public.
This bill, the Beach Protection Act, will amend the sections of the
Clean Water Act that were enacted in the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health, BEACH, Act, which I wrote in 1990, and
which was enacted and signed by President Clinton in 2000.
The BEACH Act required states to adopt the Environmental Protection
Agency's 1986 national bacteria standard for beach water quality and
provided incentive grants for States to set up beach monitoring and
public notification programs. At the time Congress passed the BEACH
Act, only 7 States had adopted water quality standards for bacteria at
least as stringent as those recommended by EPA in 1986. Only 9 States
had programs in place to monitor all or most of their beaches for
pathogens, and to close the beaches or issue advisories when coastal
waters are not safe. Only 5 States compiled and publicized records of
beach closings and advisories. New Jersey was one of the leaders in all
three of these categories.
Now, thanks to the BEACH Act, every coastal State except Alaska has a
monitoring program and a program for public notification of
contamination of beach waters. In addition, every State has adopted
standards at least as stringent as those set by EPA.
The Beach Protection Act would build upon the progress we have made
since passage of the BEACH Act, to improve monitoring and notification
requirements, and improve the protection of our beaches.
The Beach Protection Act will reauthorize the Federal grants created
under the BEACH Act, and make several improvements to the program,
based upon the lessons learned over the last 7 years. These amendments
will increase protections and help reduce the water pollution that
threatens the environment and public health.
First, the Beach Protection Act will increase the funds available to
States, and expand the uses of those funds to include tracking the
sources of pollution that cause beach closures, and supporting
pollution prevention efforts. It will also require EPA to develop
methods for rapid testing of beach water, so that results are available
in 2 hours, instead of 2 days.
Secondly, this legislation will strengthen the requirements for
public notification of health risks posed by beach water contamination,
and ensure that all State and local agencies that play a role in
protecting the environment and public health are notified of violations
of water quality standards.
Finally, the Beach Protection Act will improve accountability for
states that fail to comply with the requirements of the Act.
These measures will improve the public's awareness of health risks
posed by contamination of coastal waters, and create additional tools
for addressing the sources of pollution that cause beach closures,
including leaking or overflowing sewer systems and stormwater runoff.
Clean water is an economic and public health necessity for New Jersey
and other coastal states. I have devoted my career to keeping New
Jersey's waters clean and safe for swimming and fishing. The original
BEACH Act I authored was an important step toward ensuring cleaner,
safer beaches. The Beach Protection Act will further strengthen
protections for the public and our beaches.
I am pleased that Senator Menendez is joining me as an original
cosponsor of this legislation. I look forward to working with my
colleagues to move this legislation forward toward passage.
______
By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
S. 1507. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for drug and health care claims data release; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from
Montana, Senator Baucus in introducing the Access to Medicare Data Act
of 2007. This legislation is based on S. 3897, the Medicare Data Access
and Research Act, which Senator Baucus and I introduced in the 109th
Congress.
The bill we are introducing today establishes a framework under which
Federal agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services
would have access to Medicare data, including data collected under the
Medicare prescription drug benefit, to conduct research consistent with
the agencies' missions. The legislation also creates a process through
which university-based and other researchers who
[[Page S6869]]
meet a strict set of requirements would be permitted to use Medicare
data for research purposes.
As I said last year, Medicare data, particularly prescription drug
data, are an immense resource that can support critical health services
research, especially research on drug safety. Examining Medicare data
could help the FDA identify situations, such as the one involving Vioxx
more quickly and to take quick action to protect the public's health
and safety.
But the FDA isn't the only place that this important research can and
should occur. The study issued earlier this week in the New England
Journal of Medicine regarding the prescription medicine Avandia clearly
demonstrates that point. Researchers from the Cleveland Clinic found
that there are serious problems with Avandia a drug that has been on
the market for 8 years and is used to treat diabetes. Specifically, the
researchers believe that taking Avandia increases the likelihood that a
diabetic patient will have a heart attack and maybe even die. The
researchers came to this conclusion after reviewing information from 42
clinical trials. Making Medicare data available to researchers like
those at the Cleveland Clinic will offer another avenue for them to
take in conducting research like this.
I want to be clear that, similar to last year's bill, the Access to
Medicare Data Act won't permit just anyone to get the Medicare data. In
applying for data access, researchers at universities and other
organizations will have to meet strict criteria. They must have well-
documented experience in analyzing the type and volume of data to be
provided under the agreement. They must agree to publish and publicly
disseminate their research methodology and results. They must obtain
approval for their study from a review board. They must comply with all
safeguards established by the Secretary to ensure the confidentiality
of information. These safeguards cannot permit the disclosure of
information to an extent greater than permitted by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Privacy Act of 1974.
I am hopeful that we can get this bill approved soon. I, for one,
don't want to be standing here next year talking about another Vioxx or
another Avandia. We need to improve and create more opportunities for
the government, as well as other researchers, to spot potential trouble
with a drug more quickly and to take swifter steps to protect the
public's health and safety. The Access to Medicare Data Act will help
us accomplish that critical goal.
______
By Ms. LANDRIEU (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Nelson of Florida,
and Mr. Martinez):
S. 1509. A bill to improve United States hurricane forecasting,
monitoring, and warning capabilities, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak about
a very important, and timely issue, for constituents all along the Gulf
Coast, as well as coastal residents along the Atlantic seaboard, the
need for accurate hurricane forecasting and tracking. This issue is
particularly timely with the 2007 Atlantic Hurricane season beginning
next week. According to the National Hurricane Center, 2007 is
estimated to have between 13 to 17 named storms, 7 to 10 hurricanes,
and 3 to 5 major hurricanes. When I hear ``three to five major
hurricanes'' I have to admit it makes me and my constituents a little
nervous because, in 2005, as the world is well aware, we had another
active hurricane season with three major storms, Katrina, Rita and
Wilma impacting the Gulf Coast States. Two of these powerful storms,
Katrina and Rita, slammed into my State of Louisiana. We lost hundreds
of lives and thousands of businesses as a result. To this day, the
region is still slowly recovering, but by all accounts, the loss of
life and property could have been much worse had we not had top notch
forecasting and tracking of these storms. Accurate monitoring of these
storms, from their development in the Gulf and Atlantic Ocean, until
they slammed into the Gulf Coast, literally saved lives as thousands of
residents were able to evacuate from the impacted areas. This accurate
forecast, showing residents if they are in the possible ``danger
zone,'' is provided by the experts in the National Hurricane Center but
they cannot do their job without the necessary data. Such data is
provided via buoys in the water, Hurricane Hunter Aircraft, radar
stations on the ground, as well as satellites.
With recent advances in technology, I believe sometimes we take for
granted these satellites, which are so far removed from our daily
existence as to be ``out of sight, out of mind.'' However, they are a
major part of our daily lives as satellites now provide us with our
radio stations, give us driving directions, bring us our favorite
television shows. These same satellites also give us views of distant
galaxies/stars and allow us to see weather patterns days before they
come through our towns. It is this use of weather tracking satellites
of which I would like to highlight with the upcoming hurricane season.
As Hurricane Katrina showed us, Federal and State response plans are
not worth the paper they are printed on if you do not know where or
when the disaster might strike. No amount of satellite phones or
stockpiles of supplies are helpful if they are on the other side of the
country when a disaster hits. Pre-positioning personnel and supplies
ahead of a disaster, as well as efficient evacuations of residents from
a possible disaster area depends just as much on accurate weather
forecasting as it does on efficient planning. That is why these weather
satellites are so key, they allow experts to say with some certainty
that one area will be out of harm's way while another area is in
potential danger.
One of these weather satellites is the Quick Scatterometer, or
QuikSCAT satellite. QuikSCAT is an ocean-observing satellite launched
in June 1999 to replace the capability of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration Scatterometer, NSCAT, satellite. The NSCAT lost
power in 1997, 9 months after launch in September 1996. QuikSCAT has
the objective of improving weather forecasts near coastlines by using
wind data in numerical weather-and-wave prediction. It also was
launched with the purpose of improving hurricane warning/monitoring as
well as serving as the next ``El Nino watcher'' for NASA. This
particular satellite was instrumental in accurate tracking of Tropical
Storm, later Hurricane Katrina, as it provided NOAA experts with
accurate data on the wind speed and direction for Katrina. It gives
experts an estimate of the size of the tropical storm winds and the
hurricane winds.
Given how important this satellite is for hurricane forecasting, many
in Congress including myself are concerned as this essential satellite
is currently 5 years over its intended 3 year lifespan and could fail
at any moment. I am aware that there are ongoing discussions in terms
of getting a replacement satellite for QuikSCAT but it is just that,
discussions. As it stands today, there are currently no contingency
plans in place should this satellite fail and no program in place to
fast track a next-generation QuikSCAT. What would the impact be you ask
if this satellite fails? Well, according to Bill Proenza, Director of
the National Hurricane Center, without QuikSCAT, hurricane forecasting
would be 16 percent less accurate 72 hours before hurricane landfall
and 10 percent less accurate 48 hours before hurricane landfall. This
loss of accuracy means a great deal for those impacted by future storms
as experts would have to expand the area possibly impacted to fully
ensure those impacted were properly warned. For example, a 16 percent
loss of accuracy at 72 hours before landfall would increase the area
expected to be under hurricane danger from 197 miles to 228 miles on
average. With a 10 percent loss of accuracy at 48 hours before
landfall, the area expected to be under hurricane danger would rise
from 136 miles to 150 miles on average. Greater inaccuracy of this type
would lead to more ``false alarm'' evacuations along the Gulf Coast and
Atlantic Coast and, as a result, decrease the possibility of impacted
populations sufficiently heeding mandatory evacuations. As someone who
has spent my whole life in Louisiana and who has been through many
hurricanes, I can tell you that if someone evacuates and then the storm
turns or does not impact their area,
[[Page S6870]]
they are less likely to evacuate for the next storm. It is human nature
and although Katrina has left many in my part of the country more
attentive to evacuation orders, as time passes certainly people will
not heed orders if inaccurate hurricane forecasts cause them to pack
their belongings and rush away from their homes, only to have the storm
hit another State. So it is essential to provide the National Hurricane
Center and NOAA with the tools they need to get the forecast right and
better prepare coastal residents for future hurricanes and storms.
With this in mind, I am introducing today the Improved Hurricane
Tracking and Forecasting Act of 2007. I am proud to be joined on this
legislation by Senators Kerry, Bill Nelson, and Martinez. My colleagues
from Florida spend much time working on hurricane preparedness and I am
honored to have their support on this bill, as well as the support from
my friend from Massachusetts. This broad array of support from senators
from both the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast shows how essential this
particular satellite program is for our coastal residents. Furthermore,
my colleague from Louisiana, Representative Charlie Melancon,
introduced the House version of this bill along with Representative Ron
Klein from Florida.
This is very straightforward bill as it authorizes $375 million for a
new satellite. QuikSCAT is 5 years past its projected lifespan and a
new replacement is needed so this bill fills the need. The funds would
go to NOAA for the design and launch of an improved QuikSCAT satellite.
This new satellite would take advantage of recent advances in
technology and maintain continuity of operations for the current
QuikSCAT weather forecasting and warning capabilities. To ensure that
we are not left in another position like this, with an ailing satellite
in space and no contingency plans for a replacement, this bill also
institutes some reporting requirements for the new QuikSCAT satellite.
When this satellite is launched, NOAA would be required to update
Congress on the operational status of the satellite and its data
capabilities. I believe this is a commonsense requirement which would
put the Congress in a position in the future to fast track
authorization or funding should it be necessary, rather than having to
play catch up.
I strongly believe this bill is necessary to protect our coastal
residents from future hurricanes. This is because, according to the
U.S. Census Bureau, close to 53 percent of the U.S. population resides
within the first 50 miles of the coast. You also have to take into
account that although hurricanes usually hit the Gulf Coast or southern
Atlantic Coast, hurricanes have and possibly will strike the more
populous northeast Atlantic Coast. Hurricane Katrina devastated
Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi but consider the same magnitude of
storm striking heavily populated New York, Massachusetts, or
Pennsylvania it would not only devastate the region but leave the
Nation's financial and commerce centers in ruins. I urge my colleagues
to support this legislation since it will help improve hurricane
forecasting and will maintain continuity of operations for current
hurricane forecasting and warning capabilities.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and articles
relating to QuikSCAT be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1509
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 ``Improved Hurricane Tracking
and Forecasting Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Scatterometers on satellites are state-of-the-art radar
instruments which operate by transmitting high-frequency
microwave pulses to the ocean surface and measuring echoed
radar pulses bounced back to the satellite.
(2) Scatterometers can acquire hundreds of times more
observations of surface wind velocity each day than can ships
and buoys, and are the only remote-sensing systems able to
provide continuous, accurate and high-resolution measurements
of both wind speeds and direction regardless of weather
conditions.
(3) The Quick Scatterometer satellite (QuikSCAT) is an
ocean-observing satellite launched on June 19, 1999, to
replace the capability of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Scatterometer (NSCAT), an instrument which
lost power in 1997, 9 months after launch in September 1996.
(4) The QuikSCAT satellite has the operational objective of
improving weather forecasts near coastlines by using wind
data in numerical weather-and-wave prediction, as well as
improve hurricane warning and monitoring and acting as the
next ``El Nino watcher'' for the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
(5) The QuikSCAT satellite was built in just 12 months and
was launched with a 3-year design life, but continues to
perform per specifications, with its backup transmitter, as
it enters into its 8th year--5 years past its projected
lifespan.
(6) The QuikSCAT satellite provides daily coverage of 90
percent of the world's oceans, and its data has been a vital
contribution to National Weather Service forecasts and
warnings over water since 2000.
(7) Despite its continuing performance, the QuikSCAT
satellite is well beyond its expected design life and a
replacement is urgently needed because, according to the
National Hurricane Center, without the QuikSCAT satellite--
(A) hurricane forecasting would be 16 percent less accurate
72 hours before hurricane landfall and 10 percent less
accurate 48 hours before hurricane landfall resulting in--
(i) with a 16 percent loss of accuracy at 72 hours before
landfall, the area expected to be under hurricane danger
would rise from 197 miles to 228 miles on average; and
(ii) with a 10 percent loss of accuracy at 48 hours before
landfall, the area expected to be under hurricane danger
would rise from 136 miles to 150 miles on average; and
(B) greater inaccuracy of this type would lead to more
``false alarm'' evacuations along the Gulf Coast and Atlantic
Coast and decrease the possibility of impacted populations
sufficiently heeding mandatory evacuations.
(8) According to recommendations in the National Academies
of Science report entitled ``Decadal Survey'', a next
generation ocean surface wind vector satellite mission is
needed during the three year period beginning in 2013.
(9) According to the National Hurricane Center, a next
generation ocean surface vector wind satellite is needed to
take advantage of current technologies that already exist to
overcome current limitations of the QuikSCAT satellite and
enhance the capabilities of the National Hurricane Center to
better warn coastal residents of possible hurricanes.
SEC. 3. PROGRAM FOR IMPROVED OCEAN SURFACE WINDS VECTOR
SATELLITE.
(a) Requirement.--The Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration shall, in consultation with
the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and the head of any other department or agency
of the United States Government designated by the President
for purposes of this section, carry out a program for an
improved ocean surface winds vector satellite.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the program required under
subsection (a) shall be to provide for the development of an
improved ocean surface winds vector satellite in order to--
(1) address science and application questions related to
air-sea interaction, coastal circulation, and biological
productivity;
(2) improve forecasting for hurricanes, coastal winds and
storm surge, and other weather-related disasters;
(3) ensure continuity of quality for satellite ocean
surface vector wind measurements so that existing weather
forecasting and warning capabilities are not degraded;
(4) advance satellite ocean surface vector wind data
capabilities; and
(5) address such other matters as the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in
consultation with the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, considers appropriate.
(c) Annual Reports.--
(1) Reports required.--Not later than six months after the
date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter
until the termination of the program required under
subsection (a), the Administrator of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration shall submit to the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the
Committee on Science and Technology of the House of
Representatives a report on the program required under
subsection (a).
(2) Elements.--Each report under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) A current description of the program required under
subsection (a), including the amount of funds expended for
the program during the period covered by such report and the
purposes for which such funds were expended.
(B) A description of the operational status of the
satellite developed under the program, including a
description of the current capabilities of the satellite and
current estimate of the anticipated lifespan of the
satellite.
(C) A description of current and proposed uses of the
satellite by the United States Government, and academic,
research, and other private entities, during the period
covered by such report.
[[Page S6871]]
(D) Any other matters that the Administrator of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in
consultation with the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, considers appropriate.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration $375,000,000 to carry out the program required
under subsection (a).
[From Florida Today, May 17, 2007]
Key Hurricane-Detecting Satellite May Fail Soon
(By Jim Waymer)
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.--A vital satellite for determining a
hurricane's power could soon go kaput. NASA's QuikSCAT polar
satellite is running on borrowed time and may soon leave
forecasters--and therefore the general public--without the
best, most precise information about how powerful approaching
storms might become, a top hurricane official warned. And
there's nothing to replace it. ``We are already on its backup
transmitter,'' Bill Proenza, director of the National
Hurricane Center, told a crowd of about 4,000 Wednesday at
the first day of the Governor's Hurricane Conference in Fort
Lauderdale. ``When we lose that, that satellite is gone.''
Proenza said the QuikSCAT satellite, launched in 1999,
could take up to five years and $400 million to replace. The
satellite was only designed to operate for three to five
years, the new director of the hurricane center said. Proenza
recently replaced Max Mayfield as director. ``I came in and
was very concerned it wasn't being addressed,'' Proenza said
in an interview with Florida Today. Proenza said he has
emphasized the satellite's importance to top officials from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
QuikSCAT measures broad windfields, giving forecasters a
bigger picture of storms than ships or aircraft. Last year,
the satellite's data revealed that what forecasters thought a
weak tropical storm was really Hurricane Helene, a Category 2
hurricane. Kinks in an infrared camera and $3 billion in cost
overruns have stalled the next generation of weather
satellites, threatening a three-year or longer gap in
coverage from orbiters that loop the Earth's poles and help
predict where the next big hurricane will hit. The gap could
worsen forecast errors from a few miles to a few hundred
miles.
The precision of the two-day forecast would drop 10
percent, Proenza said, and the three-day forecast by 16
percent. Either loss in accuracy would equate to landfall
predictions being off by potentially hundreds of miles in
Florida, since storms approach at a steep angle.
Officials rely on precise predictions for tracks to avoid
expensive, unnecessary evacuations--or worse, a failure to
evacuate those in harm's way. A QuikSCAT failure and less
precise predictions could lead to ``hurricane fatigue,'' with
more people deciding to take their chances against
approaching storms, officials said. ``There will be more
cries of wolf,'' said Charlie Roberts, senior emergency
management coordinator for Brevard County (Fla.) Emergency
Management. ``And the probability of us jumping the gun
increases.''
Launches of six replacement satellites were to start in
2009. But engineering difficulties with the satellites'
cameras, bureaucratic snags and other delays caused the cost
of the project to skyrocket to $10 billion--about 30 percent
over budget--triggering a Department of Defense review of the
project. Now, the earliest launch for the first replacement
satellites would be 2012.
Forecasters worry that if the last of a fleet of older-
generation satellites, planned for launch in late 2007, fails
at or shortly after liftoff--one in 10 do--they would have
insufficient satellite coverage beyond 2010. Longer high-
altitude aerial flights could help make up for breaks in
satellite forecast coverage. But airplanes are only good for
forecasting small regions surrounding the storms, not the
three- to five-day forecasts so vital for evacuation
planning, Proenza said. Other NASA or European satellites may
help compensate for some data lapses, too, but many of those
are designed to gather long-term climate data, not storm
information.
``I would like to see something that would last 10 years,''
Proenza said of a QuikSCAT replacement. ``NOAA needs to take
it as a top priority from here.''
____
[From the Houston Chronicle, March 16, 2007]
Expert Warns of Worse Hurricane Forecasts if Satellite Fails
(By Jessica Gresko)
Miami.--Certain hurricane forecasts could be up to 16
percent less accurate if a key weather satellite that is
already beyond its expected lifespan fails, the National
Hurricane Center's new director said Friday in calling for
hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding for expanded
research and predictions.
Bill Proenza also told the Associated Press in an wide-
ranging interview that ties between global warming and
increased hurricane strength seemed a ``natural linkage.''
But he cautioned that other weather conditions currently play
a larger part in determining the strength and number of
hurricanes.
One of Proenza's immediate concerns is the so-called
``QuikScat'' weather satellite, which lets forecasters
measure basics such as wind speed. Replacing it would take at
least four years even if the estimated $400 million cost were
available immediately, he said.
It is currently in its seventh year of operation and was
expected to last five, Proenza said, and it is only a matter
of time until it fails. Without the satellite providing key
data, Proenza said, both two- and three-day forecasts of a
storm's path would be affected. The two-day forecast could be
10 percent worse while the three-day one could be affected up
to 16 percent, Proenza said. That would mean longer stretches
of coastline would have to be placed under warnings, and more
people than necessary would have to evacuate.
Average track errors last year were about 100 miles on two-
day forecasts and 150 miles on three-day predictions. Track
errors have been cut in half over the past 15 years. Losing
QuikScat could erode some of those gains, Proenza
acknowlegded, adding he did not know of any plans to replace
It.
Proenza, 62, also discussed a series of other concerns,
naming New Orleans, the Northeast and the Florida Keys as
among the areas most vulnerable to hurricanes. Apart from
working with the media and emergency managers to help
vulnerable residents prepare, he proposed having students
come up with plans at school to discuss with their parents.
He said he believes hundreds of millions of dollars more
money is needed to better understand storms. At the same
time, he strongly opposed a proposal to close any of the
National Weather Service's 122 offices around the nation or
have them operate part time, saying ``weather certainly
doesh't take a holiday.''
Proenza took over one of meteorology's most highly visible
posts in January. His predecessor, Max Mayfield, had held the
top spot for six years.
Like Mayfield, Proenza stressed the importance of
preparedness, but he also set out slightly different
positions. Global warming was one of them. Last year, the
Caribbean and western Atlantic had the second-highest sea
temperatures since 1930, but the season turned out to be
quieter than expected, Proenza said. ``So there's got to be
other factors working and impacting hurricanes and tropical
storms than just sea surface temperatures or global
warming,'' he said.
His comments distinguished him from Mayfield, who had said
climate change didn't substantially enhance hurricane
activity, especially the number of storms. Both men talked
about being in a period of heightened hurricane activity
since 1995, as part of a natural fluctuation.
____
[From the Institute for Emergency Management, May 2, 2007]
Failing Hurricane Tracking Satellite
Hurricanes take lives and destroy property along the Gulf
and Atlantic coasts virtually every year. The danger to lives
and property is increasing as more and more people move to
the coastlines. Over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives
within 50 miles of the coast. Of this population, 7 million
have moved to the coast since 2005--many of these people have
never faced a hurricane before.
As coastlines become more densely populated, longer lead
times are needed to evacuate each area threatened by a storm.
As a result, hurricane forecasting tools have become
increasingly important. The nation's principal forecast
agencies are the National Weather Service and the National
Hurricane Center. The National Hurricane Center uses a
variety of scientific instruments and tools, including
satllites, reconnaissance planes, radar, and weather-sensing
devices. One very crucial forecasting tool is the QuikSCAT
satellite.
The QuikSCAT satellite was launched in 1999 by NASA's Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, and was expected to last until 2002.
It includes an experimental sensor to determine a Hurricane's
intensity and wind patterns. It is like a storm's X-ray,
showing the inner structure of a hurricane. The QuikSCAT is
still functioning, but it is now 8 years old, five years past
its projected lifespan. If it fails, tbe consequences could
be dire.
There is considerable uncertainty about the path of a
hurricane. When a storm is far out at sea, a large section of
the coastline is identified as being a potential landfall
site. As the storm gets closer, the area of expected landfall
shrinks down. Since cities and communities have to evacuate
many hours before expected landfall, it is important to know
as early as possible where a storm might strike. Most cities
along the coast require more than 36 hours to safely evacuate
the majority of their residents. If there are large numbers
of citizens without cars or the ability to move, the time
needed to evacuate becomes considerably longer. In 2005, good
forecasting prompted timely evacuations of appropriate areas,
and was responsible for saving thousands of lives threatened
by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
Without the QuikSCAT, the National Hurricane Center has
estimated that hurricane forecasting would be l6 percent less
accurate 72 hours before Hurricane landfall and 10 percent
less accurate 48 hours before landfall. With a 16 percent
loss of accuracy at 72 hours before landfall, the area
expected to be under hurricane danger would rise from 197
miles to 228 miles, on the average. With a 10 percent loss of
accuracy at 48 hours before landfall, the average area under
hurricane danger would rise from 136 miles to 150 miles.
More communities being warned is not better. Greater
inaccuracy will lead to many
[[Page S6872]]
``false alarms.'' If communities are evacuated multiple
times, but do not suffer a direct hit, people will stop
responding to evacuation mandates. There has been no
assessment of how the loss of forecasting accuracy would
impact deaths or damages from potential storms all along the
Gulf and Atlantic coasts.
Why Hurricane Hunter Aircraft Cannot Replace the QUikScAT
The valiant Hurricane Hunter aircraft, managed by the U.S.
Air Force Reserves, are important tools for assessing a
developing storm. Hurricane Hunter pilots fly directly into
the storm and gather data along the flight path. The crafts
have been provided with ``active microwave scatterometers,''
technology similar to what is installed in the QuikSCAT. This
technology, installed at a cost of $10 million, allows the
aircraft to gather the same kind of data that the QuikSCAT
collects.
However, the Hurricane Hunter craft cannot replace the
QuikSCAT satellite. This is easiest to explain through
analogy. Hurricane Katrina's massive storm winds filled the
entire Gulf of Mexico and the storm system towered miles into
the atmosphere. Imagine that the whole area covered by such a
massive storm is an extremely large fishing pond. A single
plane gathering data is like a tiny fishing line collecting
data only along the single strand of the line. The satellite,
on the other hand, provides rich, detailed data horizontally
from one side of the storm to the other side, and vertically,
from the ocean surface to the top of the storm's swirling
winds. The QuikSCAT is like a detailed MRI.
Looking Forward
Designing and launching a replacement satellite for the
aging QuikSCAT will take from three to five years and cost
approximately $375 million. No plans are currently in place
to replace the satellite, but if it stops functioning, we
will face serious consequences. Dr. William M. Gray, storm
forecaster, has predicted 17 named storms for 2007, including
nine hurricanes, with five of them being intense.
______
By Mr. NELSON of Florida:
S. 1510. A bill require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
promulgate consumer product safety rules concerning the safety and
labeling of portable generators; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, over the last several years,
hundreds of Americans have died from inhaling the poisonous carbon
monoxide emitted by portable, gas-powered generators. It is well past
time for Congress to step in and end these needless deaths. That is why
today I am introducing the Portable Generator Safety Act of 2007.
As most of us know, portable generators are frequently used to
provide electricity during temporary power outages. These generators
use fuel-burning engines that give off poisonous carbon monoxide gas in
their exhaust.
Every hurricane season, news stories come from Florida and elsewhere
about people killed or seriously injured by carbon monoxide poisoning
caused by portable generators. From 2000 through 2006, at least 260
carbon monoxide poisoning deaths were reported to the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission. In the last 3 months of 2006 alone, 32
people died from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by generators. These
people died because portable generators are not manufactured to
automatically cut off when high carbon monoxide levels are reached, and
because generators still do not have adequate carbon monoxide warning
labels.
Here is what is especially troubling about these senseless deaths:
the Consumer Product Safety Commission has studied and known for years
that people were dying from carbon monoxide poisoning at an incredibly
alarming rate. In study after study, Commission staff has recognized
the high death rate from portable generators, and found that current
regulations are inadequate to protect consumers. In January of this
year, the Commission finally adopted warning label requirements for
portable generators, nearly 10 years after they started looking into
the issue. While I appreciate this initial step, I remain very troubled
that the Commission again refused to take the most logical step,
adoption of mandatory Federal safety standards.
Enough is enough. Industry self-regulation, which works in some
settings, clearly is not working in this area. Congress must now step
in and do its part to eliminate these tragic and avoidable deaths.
My bill, the Portable Generator Safety Act of 2007, takes some
simple, common sense steps. The bill requires the Consumer Product
Safety Commission to pass tough Federal regulations within 180 days of
enactment of this bill. The new regulations would have three key
components.
First, every portable generator would be required to have a sensor
that automatically shuts off the generator before lethal levels of
carbon monoxide are reached. Other products, such as portable heaters,
already contain these types of sensors, and they save lives.
Second, every portable generator must have clearly written warnings
on the packaging, in the instruction manual accompanying the generator,
and on the generator itself. In January, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission issued new regulations requiring placement of warning labels
on generators. Unfortunately, these labels are not as clear as they
should be. This bill will require clear, easy-to-read warnings that
consumers will read both when they purchase the generators and when
they power them up in emergency situations.
Third, this legislation will require the Consumer Product Safety
Commission to carry out a comprehensive education program warning the
public of the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning.
How many more innocent people must die before we require the Consumer
Product Safety Commission and the portable generator industry to take
some sensible, pro-consumer steps? The National Hurricane Center just
issued its 2007 hurricane season forecast, and it looks like we will
have an above-average year for hurricane activity. I hope we are not
back here at the end of the year asking these same questions.
I ask unanimous consent that the text in 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. 1510
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 ``Portable Generator Safety
Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Portable generators are frequently used to provide
electricity during temporary power outages. These generators
use fuel-burning engines that emit carbon monoxide gas in
their exhaust.
(2) In the last several years, hundreds of people
nationwide have been seriously injured or killed due to
exposure to carbon monoxide poisoning from portable
generators. From 2000 through 2006, at least 260 carbon
monoxide poisoning deaths related to portable generator use
were reported to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. In
the last three months of 2006 alone, 32 carbon monoxide
deaths were linked to generator use.
(3) Virtually all of the serious injuries and deaths due to
carbon monoxide from portable generators were preventable. In
many instances, consumers simply were unaware of the hazards
posed by carbon monoxide.
(4) Since at least 1997, a priority of the Consumer Product
Safety Commission has been to reduce injuries and deaths
resulting from carbon monoxide poisoning.
(5) On January 4, 2007, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission adopted certain labeling standards for portable
generators (section 1407 of title 16, Code of Federal
Regulations), but such standards do not go far enough to
reduce substantially the potential harm to consumers.
(6) The issuance of mandatory safety standards and labeling
requirements to warn consumers of the dangers associated with
portable generator carbon monoxide would reduce the risk of
injury or death.
SEC. 3. SAFETY STANDARD: REQUIRING EQUIPMENT OF PORTABLE
GENERATORS WITH CARBON MONOXIDE INTERLOCK
SAFETY DEVICES.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall
promulgate consumer product safety rules, pursuant to section
7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056),
requiring, at a minimum, that every portable generator sold
to the public for purposes other than resale shall be
equipped with an interlock safety device that--
(1) detects the level of carbon monoxide in the areas
surrounding such portable generator; and
(2) automatically turns off the portable generator before
the level of carbon monoxide reaches a level that would cause
serious bodily injury or death to people.
SEC. 4. LABELING AND INSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall
promulgate consumer product safety rules, pursuant to section
7 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2056),
requiring, at a minimum, the following:
[[Page S6873]]
(1) Warning labels.--Each portable generator sold to the
public for purposes other than resale shall have a large,
prominently displayed warning label in both English and
Spanish on the exterior packaging, if any, of the portable
generator and permanently affixed on the portable generator
regarding the carbon monoxide hazard posed by incorrect use
of the portable generator. The warning label shall include
the word ``DANGER'' printed in a large font that is no
smaller than 1 inch tall, and shall include the following
information, at a minimum, presented in a clear manner:
(A) Indoor use of a portable generator can kill quickly.
(B) Portable generators should be used outdoors only and
away from garages and open windows.
(C) Portable generators produce carbon monoxide, a
poisonous gas that people cannot see or smell.
(2) Pictogram.--Each portable generator sold to the public
for purposes other than resale shall have a large pictogram,
affixed to the portable generator, which clearly states
``POISONOUS GAS'' and visually depicts the harmful effects of
breathing carbon monoxide.
(3) Instruction manual.--The instruction manual, if any,
that accompanies any portable generator sold to the public
for purposes other than resale shall include detailed, clear,
and conspicuous statements that include the following
elements:
(A) A warning that portable generators emit carbon
monoxide, a poisonous gas that can kill people.
(B) A warning that people cannot smell, see, or taste
carbon monoxide.
(C) An instruction to operate portable generators only
outdoors and away from windows, garages, and air intakes.
(D) An instruction never to operate portable generators
inside homes, garages, sheds, or other semi-enclosed spaces,
even if a person runs a fan or opens doors and windows.
(E) A warning that if a person begins to feel sick, dizzy,
or weak while using a portable generator, that person should
shut off the portable generator, get to fresh air
immediately, and consult a doctor.
SEC. 5. PUBLIC OUTREACH.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety
Commission shall establish a program of public outreach to
inform consumers of the dangers associated with the emission
of carbon monoxide from portable generators.
(b) Time.--The program required by subsection (a) shall
place emphasis on informing consumers of the dangers
described in such subsection during the start of each
hurricane season.
______
By Mr. AKAKA (for himself, Ms. Murkowski, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1511. A bill to promote the development and use of marine and
hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Finance.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will
create opportunities in the development and use of marine and
hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies. I want to thank my
colleagues Senator Murkowski and Senator Snowe for cosponsoring this
measure.
We must work to encourage the production of clean, nongreenhouse gas
emitting renewable energy. Ocean energy has the potential to be one of
the largest sources of low-cost renewable energy in the United States
by utilizing the power generated by waves in our oceans and major
rivers, as well as tidal, current, and thermal power to generate
turbine-powered electricity. As we look at ways to increase our
renewable energy portfolio as a Nation, and decrease our dependence on
oil, we would be remiss if we did not fully research and utilize the
power that could be harnessed through water resources. I am acutely
aware of this need in Hawaii, as we are an island State with finite
natural resources, and who understand the necessity of environmentally
friendly solutions to our energy problems. The ocean sits at our
doorstep, providing us with sustenance in many different forms. To
ignore the potential it can offer as a major source of renewable clean
energy, not only in Hawaii, but for our entire country, would be a
waste.
While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 qualified ocean energy for
research assistance, grants and the federal purchase credit, various
forms of ocean energy projects have yet to receive equitable funding.
According to the Electric Power Research Institute, ocean energy has
the potential to generate 252 million megawatt hours of electricity.
This represents 6.5 percent of today's entire energy portfolio.
European nations, such as Portugal and Scotland, have successfully
implemented commercial wave farms that are consistently producing clean
power for consumer use. While the technology is not developed to the
fullest, there is great potential.
However, ocean energy projects do not enjoy a production tax credit,
an investment tax credit, or any other financial incentive currently
being utilized by wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other renewable
energy resources.
This bill levels the playing field allowing ocean energy projects to
be eligible for the financial and tax incentives that other renewable
technologies receive. This will allow ocean energy projects to compete
equitably in the future with other forms of renewable energy.
In order to work toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions and our
dependence on fossil fuels, we must do all that we can to encourage the
development and production of many different renewable energy
technologies, such as ocean, wind, geothermal, biomass, ethanol, and
others. Achieving our goals will only be possible if we approach the
problem from many angles, and together, we will make an impact. I
encourage my colleagues to support this measure.
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. 1511
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 ``Marine and Hydrokinetic
Renewable Energy Promotion Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION.
For purposes of this Act, the term ``marine and
hydrokinetic renewable energy'' means electrical energy
from--
(1) waves, tides, and currents in oceans, estuaries, and
tidal areas;
(2) free flowing water in rivers, lakes, and streams;
(3) free flowing water in man-made channels, including
projects that utilize nonmechanical structures to accelerate
the flow of water for electric power production purposes; and
(4) differentials in ocean temperature (ocean thermal
energy conversion).
The term shall not include energy from any source that
utilizes a dam, diversionary structure, or impoundment for
electric power purposes, except as provided in paragraph (3).
SEC. 3. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
(a) Program.--The Secretary of Energy, in consultation with
the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior,
shall establish a program of marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy research focused on--
(1) developing and demonstrating marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy technologies;
(2) reducing the manufacturing and operation costs of
marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies;
(3) increasing the reliability and survivability of marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy facilities;
(4) integrating marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
into electric grids;
(5) identifying opportunities for cross fertilization and
development of economies of scale between offshore wind and
marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy sources;
(6) identifying, in consultation with the Secretary of
Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior, the environmental
impacts of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
technologies and ways to address adverse impacts, and
providing public information concerning technologies and
other means available for monitoring and determining
environmental impacts; and
(7) standards development, demonstration, and technology
transfer for advanced systems engineering and system
integration methods to identify critical interfaces.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for carrying
out this section $50,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
2008 through 2017.
SEC. 4. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL FUND.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the use of marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
technologies can avoid contributions to global warming gases,
and such technologies can be produced domestically;
(2) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy is a nascent
industry; and
(3) the United States must work to promote new renewable
energy technologies that reduce contributions to global
warming gases and improve our country's domestic energy
production in a manner that is consistent with environmental
protection, recreation, and other public values.
(b) Establishment.--The Secretary of Energy shall establish
an Adaptive Management and Environmental Fund, and shall
[[Page S6874]]
lend amounts from that fund to entities described in
subsection (f) to cover the costs of projects that produce
marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy. Such costs include
design, fabrication, deployment, operation, monitoring, and
decommissioning costs. Loans under this section may be
subordinate to project-related loans provided by commercial
lending institutions to the extent the Secretary of Energy
considers appropriate.
(c) Reasonable Access.--As a condition of receiving a loan
under this section, a recipient shall provide reasonable
access, to Federal or State agencies and other research
institutions as the Secretary considers appropriate, to the
project area and facilities for the purposes of independent
environmental research.
(d) Public Availability.--The results of any assessment or
demonstration paid for, in whole or in part, with funds
provided under this section shall be made available to the
public, except to the extent that they contain information
that is protected from disclosure under section 552(b) of
title 5, United States Code.
(e) Repayment of Loans.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Energy shall require a
recipient of a loan under this section to repay the loan,
plus interest at a rate of 2.1 percent per year, over a
period not to exceed 20 years, beginning after the commercial
generation of electric power from the project commences. Such
repayment shall be required at a rate that takes into account
the economic viability of the loan recipient and ensures
regular and timely repayment of the loan.
(2) Beginning of repayment period.--No repayments shall be
required under this subsection until after the project
generates net proceeds. For purposes of this paragraph, the
term ``net proceeds'' means proceeds from the commercial sale
of electricity after payment of project-related costs,
including taxes and regulatory fees that have not been paid
using funds from a loan provided for the project under this
section.
(3) Termination.--Repayment of a loan made under this
section shall terminate as of the date that the project for
which the loan was provided ceases commercial generation of
electricity if a governmental permitting authority has
ordered the closure of the facility because of a finding that
the project has unacceptable adverse environmental impacts,
except that the Secretary shall require a loan recipient to
continue making loan repayments for the cost of equipment,
obtained using funds from the loan that have not otherwise
been repaid under rules established by the Secretary, that is
utilized in a subsequent project for the commercial
generation of electricity.
(f) Adaptive Management Plan.--In order to receive a loan
under this section, an applicant for a Federal license or
permit to construct, operate, or maintain a marine or
hydrokinetic renewable energy project shall provide to the
Federal agency with primary jurisdiction to issue such
license or permit an adaptive management plan for the
proposed project. Such plan shall--
(1) be prepared in consultation with other parties to the
permitting or licensing proceeding, including all Federal,
State, municipal, and tribal agencies with authority under
applicable Federal law to require or recommend design or
operating conditions, for protection, mitigation, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, water quality,
navigation, public safety, land reservations, or recreation,
for incorporation into the permit or license;
(2) set forth specific and measurable objectives for the
protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife
resources, water quality, navigation, public safety, land
reservations, or recreation, as required or recommended by
governmental agencies described in paragraph (1), and shall
require monitoring to ensure that these objectives are met;
(3) provide specifically for the modification or, if
necessary, removal of the marine or hydrokinetic renewable
energy project based on findings by the licensing or
permitting agency that the marine or hydrokinetic renewable
energy project has not attained or will not attain the
specific and measurable objectives set forth in paragraph
(2); and
(4) be approved and incorporated in the Federal license or
permit.
(g) Sunset.--The Secretary of Energy shall transmit a
report to the Congress when the Secretary of Energy
determines that the technologies supported under this Act
have achieved a level of maturity sufficient to enable the
expiration of the programs under this Act. The Secretary of
Energy shall not make any new loans under this section after
the report is transmitted under this subsection.
SEC. 5. PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT.
The Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of the Interior
shall, in cooperation with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission and the Secretary of Energy, and in consultation
with appropriate State agencies, jointly prepare programmatic
environmental impact statements which contain all the
elements of an environmental impact statement under section
102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4332), regarding the impacts of the deployment of
marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy technologies in the
navigable waters of the United States. One programmatic
environmental impact statement shall be prepared under this
section for each of the Environmental Protection Agency
regions of the United States. The agencies shall issue the
programmatic environmental impact statements under this
section not later than 18 months after the date of enactment
of this Act. The programmatic environmental impact statements
shall evaluate among other things the potential impacts of
site selection on fish and wildlife and related habitat.
Nothing in this section shall operate to delay consideration
of any application for a license or permit for a marine and
hydrokinetic renewable energy technology project.
SEC. 6. PRODUCTION CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM
MARINE RENEWABLES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 45 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to resources) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (G),
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (H)
and inserting ``, and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(I) marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(10) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy.--
``(A) In general.--The term `marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy' means energy derived from--
``(i) waves, tides, and currents in oceans, estuaries, and
tidal areas,
``(ii) free flowing water in rivers, lakes, and streams,
``(iii) free flowing water in man-made channels, including
projects that utilize nonmechanical structures to accelerate
the flow of water for electric power production purposes, or
``(iv) differentials in ocean temperature (ocean thermal
energy conversion).
``(B) Exceptions.--Such term shall not include any energy
which is--
``(i) described in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of
paragraph (1), or
``(ii) derived from any source that utilizes a dam,
diversionary structure, or impoundment for electric power
production purposes, except as provided in subparagraph
(A)(iii).''.
(b) Definition of Facility.--Subsection (d) of section 45
of such Code (relating to qualified facilities) is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(11) Marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy
facilities.--In the case of a facility producing electricity
from marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy, the term
`qualified facility' means any facility owned by the taxpayer
which is originally placed in service after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph and before January 1, 2009.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to electricity produced and sold after the date
of the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after
such date.
SEC. 7. INVESTMENT CREDIT AND 5-YEAR DEPRECIATION FOR
EQUIPMENT WHICH PRODUCES ELECTRICITY FROM
MARINE AND HYDROKINETIC RENEWABLE ENERGY.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 48(a)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to energy
property) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (iii),
(2) by inserting ``or'' at the end of clause (iv), and
(3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(v) equipment which uses marine and hydrokinetic
renewable energy (as defined in section 45(c)(10)) but only
with respect to periods ending before January 1, 2018,''.
(b) 30 Percent Credit.--Clause (i) of section 48(a)(2)(A)
of such Code (relating to 30 percent credit) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (II), and
(2) by adding at the end the following new subclause:
``(IV) energy property described in paragraph (3)(A)(v),
and''.
(c) Credits Allowed for Investment and Production.--
Paragraph (3) of section 48(a) of such Code (relating to
energy property) is amended by inserting ``(other than
property described in subparagraph (A)(v))'' after ``any
property'' in the last sentence thereof.
(d) Denial of Dual Benefit.--Paragraph (9) of section 45(e)
of such Code (relating to coordination with credit for
producing fuel from a nonconventional source) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``shall not include''
and all that follows and inserting ``shall not include--
``(i) any facility which produces electricity from gas
derived from the biodegradation of municipal solid waste if
such biodegradation occurred in a facility (within the
meaning of section 45K) the production from which is allowed
as a credit under section 45K for the taxable year or any
prior taxable year, or
``(ii) any marine and hydrokinetic facility for which a
credit is claimed by the taxpayer under section 48 for the
taxable year.'', and
(2) in the header--
(A) by striking ``credit'' and inserting ``credits'', and
(B) by inserting ``and investment in marine and
hydrokinetic renewable energy'' after ``nonconventional
source''.
(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act, in taxable years ending after such
date.
[[Page S6875]]
______
By Mr. OBAMA:
S. 1513. A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to
authorize grant programs to enhance the access of low-income African-
American students to higher education; to the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, as a college education becomes ever more
imperative for economic success, both for individual citizens and for
our Nation, a growing number of African-American students enroll in
colleges whose mission includes a focus on educating minority students.
And, over the years, Congress has acknowledged the important role of
similar institutions, recognizing for example, Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, and Hispanic Serving Institutions, by
establishing grant programs to support their missions. Today, I am
introducing legislation to recognize the importance of Predominantly
Black Institutions as an essential component of the American system of
higher education.
The Predominantly Black Institution designation recognizes urban and
rural colleges, many of which are 2-year community or technical
colleges, which serve a large proportion of African-American students,
most of whom are the first in their families to attend college, and
most of whom receive financial aid. These students have already beaten
the odds to progress this far, and it is fitting that we offer some
support to the institutions they attend, to ensure that the education
they receive is worthy of their efforts.
Whereas Predominantly Black Institutions and Historically Black
Colleges and Universities both serve African-American students, they
differ in ways that necessitate this legislation. Historically Black
Colleges and Universities are not required to serve needy students,
whereas Predominantly Black Institution must serve at least 50 percent
low-income or first-generation college students. Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, by definition, were established prior to
1964, whereas PBIs are of more recent origin.
Approximately 75 institutions, and more than a quarter of a million
students, would benefit from grants awarded as a result of the
Predominantly Black Institution designation. Grants could be used for a
variety of purposes, from acquiring laboratory equipment to supporting
teacher education to establishing community outreach programs for pre-
college students.
Legislation to establish Predominantly Black Institutions was
introduced last year by my good friend from Illinois, Congressman Danny
Davis. I urge my Senate colleagues to consider the needs of these
students, to support their colleges and universities, and to join me in
this effort.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Reed):
S. 1514. A bill to revise and extend provisions under the Garrett Lee
Smith Memorial Act; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak on a bill I am introducing
with my colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Reed. The bill is a
reauthorization of the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, a landmark
legislation enacted nearly three years ago that significantly
strengthened our commitment as a Nation to reduce the public and mental
health tragedy of youth suicide. I would like to take a moment to thank
my colleagues who joined me in this effort, particularly Senator Smith.
We all know the personal tragedy Senator Smith, his wife, Sharon, and
their family suffered when their son and brother, Garrett, took his
life over 3 years ago. Since that time, Senator Smith and Sharon have
become tireless advocates in advancing the cause of youth suicide
prevention, and their work should be commended.
Three years after this important legislation became law, suicide
among our Nation's young people remains an acute crisis that knows no
geographic, racial, ethnic, cultural, or socioeconomic boundaries. Each
year, almost 3,000 young people take their lives, making suicide the
third overall cause of death between the ages of 10 and 24. Young
people under the age of 25 account for 15 percent of all suicides
completed. In fact, more children and young adults die from their own
hand than from cancer, heart disease, AIDS, birth defects, stroke and
chronic lung disease combined.
Equally alarming are the numbers of young people who consider taking
or attempt to take their lives. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention figures estimate that almost 3 million high school students,
or 20 percent of young adults between the ages of 15 and 19, consider
suicide every year. Furthermore, over 2 million children and young
adults actually attempt suicide each year. Seventy percent of people
who die by suicide tell someone about it in advance. Yet, tragically,
few of these young people do not receive appropriate intervention
services before it's too late.
When it was enacted into law, the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act
became the first legislation specifically designed to prevent youth
suicide. The legislation established a new grant initiative for the
further development and expansion of youth suicide early intervention
and prevention strategies and the community-based services they seek to
coordinate. It additionally authorized a dedicated technical assistance
center to assist States, localities, tribes, and community service
providers with the planning, implementation, and evaluation of these
strategies and services. It also established a new grant initiative to
enhance and improve early intervention and prevention services
specifically designed for college-aged students. Lastly, it created a
new inter-agency collaboration to focus on policy development and the
dissemination of data specifically pertaining to youth suicide. I am
pleased to say that to date, 29 States, 7 tribes, and 55 colleges and
universities have benefitted from $63.4 million in resources to
increase their services to youth, provided by the Garrett Lee Smith
Memorial Act.
The bill we introduce today seeks to continue the good work started
by the initial legislation. First, it authorizes $210 million over 5
years for continued development and expansion of statewide youth
suicide prevention and early intervention strategies. Second, it
authorizes $31 million over 5 years to continue assisting college
campuses meet the needs of their students. And third, it authorizes $25
million over 5 years to continue the vital research on suicide
prevention for all age groups being conducted by the Suicide Prevention
Technical Assistance Center.
I continue to believe that finding concrete, comprehensive and
effective remedies to the epidemic of youth suicide cannot be done by
lawmakers on Capitol Hill alone. Those remedies must also come from
individuals, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, nurses,
teachers, advocates, survivors, and affected families, who are
dedicated to this issue or spend each day with children and young
adults that suffer from illnesses related to suicide. Despite the goals
we have achieved with the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, I believe
that our work is not done. I hope that, as a society, we can continue
working collectively both to understand better the tragedy of youth
suicide and develop innovative and effective public and mental health
initiatives that reach every child and young adult in this country--
compassionate initiatives that give them encouragement, hope, and above
all, life.
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. 1514
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 ``Garrett Lee Smith Memorial
Act Reauthorization of 2007''.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT.
(a) Interagency Research, Training, and Technical
Assistance Centers.--Section 520C of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290bb-34) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``youth suicide early
intervention and prevention strategies'' and inserting
``suicide early intervention and prevention strategies for
all ages, particularly for youth'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``youth suicide early
intervention and prevention strategies'' and inserting
``suicide early intervention and prevention strategies for
all ages, particularly for youth'';
[[Page S6876]]
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) by striking ``youth''; and
(ii) by inserting before the semicolon the following: ``for
all ages, particularly for youth'';
(D) in paragraph (4), by striking ``youth suicide'' and
inserting ``suicide for all ages, particularly among youth'';
(E) in paragraph (5), by striking ``youth suicide early
intervention techniques and technology'' and inserting
``suicide early intervention techniques and technology for
all ages, particularly for youth'';
(F) in paragraph (7)--
(i) by striking ``youth''; and
(ii) by inserting ``for all ages, particularly for youth,''
after ``strategies''; and
(G) in paragraph (8)--
(i) by striking ``youth suicide'' each place that such
appears and inserting ``suicide''; and
(ii) by striking ``in youth'' and inserting ``among all
ages, particularly among youth''; and
(2) in subsection (e)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``$4,000,000'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``$4,000,000
for fiscal year 2008, and such sums as may be necessary for
each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012.''; and
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$3,000,000'' and all
that follows through the period and inserting ``$5,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.''.
(b) Youth Suicide Early Intervention and Prevention
Strategies.--Section 520E of the Public Health Service Act
(42 U.S.C. 290bb-36) is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Limitation.--In carrying out this section, the
Secretary shall ensure that a State does not receive more
than one grant or cooperative agreement under this section at
any one time. For purposes of the preceding sentences, a
State shall be considered to have received a grant or
cooperative agreement if the eligible entity involved is the
State or an entity designated by the State under paragraph
(1)(B). Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to apply
to entities described in paragraph (1)(C).''; and
(2) by striking subsection (m) and inserting the following:
``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--For the purpose of
carrying out this section, there are authorized to be
appropriated $34,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, $38,000,000
for fiscal year 2009, $42,000,000 for fiscal year 2010,
$46,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, and $50,000,000 for fiscal
year 2012.''.
(c) Mental and Behavioral Health Services on Campus.--
Section 520E-2(h) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
290bb-36b(h)) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000 for fiscal
year 2005'' and all that follows through the period and
inserting ``$5,400,000 for fiscal year 2008, $5,800,000 for
fiscal year 2009, $6,200,000 for fiscal year 2010, $6,600,000
for fiscal year 2011, and $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.''.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, today, I rise with my colleagues Senator
Dodd and Senator Reed to introduce an important bill for our youth, the
Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act Reauthorization of 2007. Nearly 3 years
ago, the Senate first passed this Act with 39 cosponsors. At that time,
we heard an outpouring of support and sharing from other members of the
Senate who have lost members of their families. On September 9, 2004,
my son Garrett's birthday, the House and Senate passed the Garrett Lee
Smith Memorial Act with overwhelming support. I remain thankful for
their wisdom and support of the important programs this Act created
that focused on youth suicide prevention.
As I said in 2004, this Act represents the best of American
Government, an opportunity when our Nation's elected officials can come
together, put aside their political parties and politics, to debate and
pass legislation. During the last 3 years, this effort has resulted in
nearly $65 million in suicide prevention and intervention funding to
States, tribes, and on our Nation's higher education institutions.
I also want to recognize and thank my colleagues who have championed
this cause for a great many years Senator Dodd, Senator Jack Reed,
Senator Harry Reid and Senator Kennedy your work to raise awareness
about youth suicide has been significant and for that I thank you. I
also would like to thank Representative Patrick Kennedy for his support
on this and so many other issues affecting persons with mental illness.
I look forward to continuing to work with all of you to ensure passage
of this reauthorization bill.
As most of you know, I came to be a champion of this issue not
because I volunteered for it, but because I suffered for it. In
September of 2003, Sharon and I lost our son Garrett Lee Smith to
suicide. While Sharon and I think about Garrett every day and mourn his
loss, we take solace in the time we had with him, and have committed
ourselves to preserving his memory by helping others.
Sharon and I adopted Garrett a few days after his birth. He was such
a handsome baby boy. He was unusually happy and playful, and he also
was especially thoughtful of everyone around him as he grew older. His
exuberance for life, however, began to dim in his elementary years. He
struggled to spell. His reading and writing were stuck in the
rudiments. We had him tested and were surprised to learn that he had an
unusually high IQ, but struggled with a severe overlay of learning
disabilities, including dyslexia.
However, it would be years later that we learned of the greatest
challenge to face Garrett, his diagnosis of bi-polar disorder. Bipolar
disorder, also known as manic-depressive illness, is a brain disorder
that causes unusual shifts in a person's mood, energy and ability to
function. Different from the normal ups and downs of life that everyone
goes through, the symptoms of bipolar disorder are severe. As his
parents, we knew how long and how desperately Garrett had suffered from
his condition. Yet, tragically, over three years ago Garrett reached a
point where his illness took over and he could no longer fight.
In his memory, I have committed myself to helping prevent other
families from experiencing the tremendous pain that comes with the loss
of a loved-one to suicide. We know that each year, more than 4,000
youth aged 15 to 24 die by suicide. From this number we know that since
Garrett's death more than 14,000 young people have lost their lives to
suicide. Too many young lives have been lost and continue to be lost.
While we can always do more, this Act has taken that first,
significant step toward creating and funding an organized effort at the
Federal, State and local levels to prevent and intervene when youth are
at risk for mental and behavioral conditions that can lead to suicide.
The loss of a life to suicide at any age is sad and traumatic, but when
it happens to someone who has just begun their life, has just begun to
fulfill their potential the impact somehow seems harsher, sadder and
more pronounced.
Once signed into law, this bill will authorize $210 million in new
funding over 5 years to further support States and Native American
tribes in building systems of State-wide early intervention and
prevention strategies. This bill will continue the current practice of
ensuring that 85 percent of funding will be provided to entities
focused on identifying and preventing suicide at the State and
community level. Since the Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act was signed
into law in 2004, 29-States and seven tribes have received grants to
help them plan for and implement youth suicide prevention strategies.
The new and higher funding level will allow States that have never
received a grant to receive funding. It also will allow States that
have received grants in the past to expand their efforts to include
more geographic areas and youth populations.
In my home State of Oregon, which has been especially active and
forward-thinking in combating youth suicide, the Department of Human
Services has been working in a number of counties throughout the State
to increase referrals so care is available when needed, establish
linkages to care and improve knowledge among clinicians, crisis
response workers, school staff, youth and lay persons related to youth
who are at-risk. The Native American Rehabilitation Association of the
Northwest, Inc. also has implemented the Native Youth Prevention
Project, which serves nine tribes and tribal confederations in Oregon
where American Indian youth have the highest suicide rate in the State.
Programs such as these can be important catalysts for change across the
Nation and we must continue to support them.
The bill also reauthorizes a Suicide Prevention Resource Center,
which provides technical assistance to States and local grantees to
ensure that they are able to implement their State-wide early
intervention and prevention strategy. It also collects data related to
the programs, evaluates the effectiveness of the programs, and
identifies and distributes best practices. Sharing technical data and
program best practices is necessary to ensure that Federal funding is
being utilized in the
[[Page S6877]]
best manner possible and that information is being circulated among
participants. The Center will receive $25 million over 5 years for
these purposes. Since 2004, the Center has done great work to support
the grantees under this Act as well as push forward broader science-to-
service efforts to combat youth suicide.
Finally, the bill will provide $31 million over 5 years to continue
the colleges and universities grant program. This program works to
establish mental health programs or enhance existing mental health
programs focused on increasing access to and enhancing the range of
mental and behavioral health services for students. Entering college
can be one of the most disruptive and demanding times in a young
person's life, but for persons with a mental illness the changes can
become overwhelming. Loss of their parental support system, and lack of
a familiar and easily accessed health care providers often can become
too much of a burden to bear. We must ensure programs are in place to
help them overcome these challenges.
So far, 55 colleges and universities have received grants through the
Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act, including two in my home State, helping
countless students. However, with more than 4,000 degree-granting
institutions in the United States, there are many more campuses that
will be helped by this reauthorization.
I am pleased to be a champion of this cause and this bill and hope my
colleagues will join me in supporting its passage.
______
By Mr. BIDEN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 1515. A bill to establish a domestic violence volunteer attorney
network to represent domestic violence victims; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing with my good friend
from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, an innovative bill that will help
the lives of domestic violence victims. Sadly, domestic violence
remains a reality for one out of four women in our country. Experts
agree a pivotal factor to ending domestic violence is meaningful access
to the justice system. Recent academic research finds that increased
provision of legal services is ``one likely significant factor in
explaining the decline [of domestic violence] . . . Because legal
services help women with practical matters such as protective orders,
custody, and child support they appear to actually present women with
real, longterm alternatives to their relationships.'' Stopping the
violence hinges on a victim's ability to obtain effective protection
orders, initiate separation proceedings or design safe child custody.
Yet thousands of victims of domestic violence go without
representation every day in this country. A patchwork of services do
their best to provide represent domestic violence victims, law school
clinics, individual State domestic violence coalitions, legal services,
and private attorneys. But there are obvious gaps and simply not enough
lawyers for victims and their myriad legal needs due to the abuse,
including protection orders, divorce and child custody, immigration
adjustments, and bankruptcy declarations. Experts estimate that current
legal services serve about 170,000 low-income domestic violence victims
each year and yet, there are at least 1 million victims each year. At
best then, less than 1 out of 5 low-income victims ever see a lawyer.
I believe there is a wealth of untapped resources in this country,
lawyers who want to volunteer. My National Domestic Violence Volunteer
Act would harness the skills, enthusiasm and dedication of these
lawyers and infuse 100,000 new volunteer lawyers into the justice
system to represent domestic violence victims. We should make it as
smooth and simple for volunteer lawyers. My bill creates a streamlined,
organized and national system to connect lawyers to clients.
I can't overemphasize the importance of having a lawyer standing
shoulder-to-shoulder with a victim as she navigates the system. We must
match a willing lawyer to a victim as soon as the victim calls the
Hotline, walks into a courtroom or involves the police. It is at that
crucial moment a victim needs to feel support, and if she doesn't, she
may retreat back into the abuse.
To enlist, train and place volunteer lawyers, my bill creates a new,
electronic National Domestic Violence Attorney Network and Referral
Project that will be administered by the American Bar Association
Commission on Domestic Violence.
There are five components of my legislation.
First, it creates a National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney
Network Referral Project to be managed by the American Bar Association
Commission on Domestic Violence. With $2 million of new Federal funding
each year, the American Bar Association Commission on Dometic Violence
will solicit for volunteer lawyers and then create and maintain an
electronic network. It will provide appropriate mentoring, training and
technical assistance to volunteer lawyers. And it will establish and
maintain a point of contact in each State, a statewide legal
coordinator, to help match willing lawyers to victims.
Second, it enlists the National Domestic Violence Hotline and
Internet sources to provide legal referrals. The bill will help the
National Domestic Violence Hotline to update their system and train
advocates on how to provide legal referrals to callers in coordination
with the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence.
Legal referrals may also be done by qualified Internet-based services.
Third, it creates a Pilot Program and National Rollout of National
Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network and Referral Project. The
bill designs a pilot program to implement the volunteer attorney
network in five diverse States. The Office on Violence Against Women in
the Department of Justice will administer these monies to qualified
statewide legal coordinators to help them connect with the ABA
Commission on Domestic Violence, the National Domestic Violence
Hotline, and the volunteer lawyers. After a successful stint in five
States, the bill will rollout the program nationally.
Fourth, the measure establishes a Domestic Violence Legal Advisory
Task Force to monitor the program and make recommendations.
Fifth, the bill mandates the General Accounting Office to study each
State and assess the scope and quality of legal services available to
battered women and report back to Congress within a year.
A terrific roundtable of groups reviewed and contributed to this
legislation, including the National Network to End Domestic Violence,
the Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women, the National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Council of Juvenile
and Family Court Judges, the American Bar Association, WomensLaw.org,
the National Domestic Violence Hotline, the Legal Services Corporation,
the American Prosecutors Research Institute, National Legal Aid and
Defenders Association, National Center for State Courts, National
Association for Attorneys General, Battered Women's Justice Project,
National Association of Women Judges, National Association of Women
Lawyers, National Crime Victim Bar Association and National Center for
the Victims of Crime.
I want to end today with a story about an American hero, a woman who
has been to hell and back and now is a tremendous advocate for domestic
violence victims, Yvette Cade. I want to tell it to you because I think
it serves as such a powerful message about why battered women should
have legal assistance.
Yvette Cade, a Maryland resident, was doused with gasoline and set on
fire by her estranged husband while she was at work. Half of her upper
body, including her entire face, suffered third-degree burns, the most
serious level.
Just three weeks before the attack, a judge dismissed the protective
order Yvette had against her husband, despite her protests that he was
violent. At the hearing in which the judge dismissed Cade's protective
order, the judge told Cade he could not be her advocate, only the
``umpire.'' Cade told him that she no longer wanted to be married to
her abusive husband. The judge replied, ``well, then get a lawyer, and
get a divorce. That's all you have to do,'' I believe that today's
National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act would make
getting a lawyer a reality, not just good advice.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
[[Page S6878]]
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1515
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 ``National Domestic Violence
Volunteer Attorney Network Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the terms ``dating partner'', ``dating
violence'', ``domestic violence'', ``legal assistance'',
``linguistically and culturally specific services'',
``stalking'', and ``State domestic violence coalitions''
shall have the same meaning given such terms in section 3 of
the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-162).
SEC. 3. NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY
NETWORK.
Section 1201 of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 3796gg-6) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(g) National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney
Network.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Grants.--The Attorney General may award grants to the
American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence to
work in collaboration with the American Bar Association
Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service and other
organizations to create, recruit lawyers for, and provide
training, mentoring, and technical assistance for a National
Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network.
``(B) Use of funds.--Funds allocated to the American Bar
Association's Commission on Domestic Violence under this
subsection shall be used to--
``(i) create and maintain a network to field and manage
inquiries from volunteer lawyers seeking to represent and
assist victims of domestic violence;
``(ii) solicit lawyers to serve as volunteer lawyers in the
network;
``(iii) retain dedicated staff to support volunteer
attorneys by--
``(I) providing field technical assistance inquiries;
``(II) providing on-going mentoring and support;
``(III) collaborating with national domestic violence legal
technical assistance providers and statewide legal
coordinators and local legal services programs; and
``(IV) developing legal education and other training
materials; and
``(iv) maintain a point of contact with the statewide legal
coordinator in each State regarding coordination of training,
mentoring, and supporting volunteer attorneys representing
victims of domestic violence.
``(2) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection $2,000,000 for each
of the fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and $3,000,000 for each of
the fiscal years 2010 through 2013.
``(3) Eligibility for other grants.--A receipt of an award
under this subsection by the Commission on Domestic Violence
of the American Bar Association shall not preclude the
Commission from receiving additional grants under the Office
on Violence Against Women's Technical Assistance Program to
carry out the purposes of that program.
``(4) Other conditions.--
``(A) Prohibition on tort litigation.--Funds appropriated
for the grant program under this subsection may not be used
to fund civil representation in a lawsuit based on a tort
claim. This subparagraph shall not be construed as a
prohibition on providing assistance to obtain restitution.
``(B) Prohibition on lobbying.--Any funds appropriated
under this subsection shall be subject to the prohibitions in
section 1913 of title 18, United States Code, relating to
lobbying with appropriated moneys.''.
SEC. 4. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY REFERRAL
PROGRAM.
(a) Pilot Program.--
(1) In general.--For fiscal years 2008 and 2009, the Office
on Violence Against Women of the Department of Justice, in
consultation with the Domestic Violence Legal Advisory Task
Force, shall designate 5 States in which to implement the
pilot program of the National Domestic Violence Volunteer
Attorney Referral Project and distribute funds under this
subsection.
(2) Criteria.--Criteria for selecting the States for the
pilot program under this subsection shall include--
(A) equitable distribution between urban and rural areas,
equitable geographical distribution;
(B) States that have a demonstrated capacity to coordinate
among local and statewide domestic violence organizations;
(C) organizations serving immigrant women; and
(D) volunteer legal services offices throughout the State.
(3) Purpose.--The purpose of the pilot program under this
subsection is to--
(A) provide for a coordinated system of ensuring that
domestic violence victims throughout the pilot States have
access to safe, culturally, and linguistically appropriate
representation in all legal matters arising as a consequence
of the abuse or violence; and
(B) support statewide legal coordinators in each State to
manage referrals for victims to attorneys and to train
attorneys on related domestic violence issues.
(4) Role of statewide legal coordinator.--A statewide legal
coordinator under this subsection shall--
(A) be employed by the statewide domestic violence
coalition, unless the statewide domestic violence coalition
determines that the needs of victims throughout the State
would be best served if the coordinator was employed by
another statewide organization;
(B) develop and maintain an updated database of attorneys
throughout the State, including--
(i) legal services programs;
(ii) volunteer programs;
(iii) organizations serving immigrant women;
(iv) law school clinical programs;
(v) bar associations;
(vi) attorneys in the National Domestic Violence Volunteer
Attorney Network; and
(vii) local domestic violence programs;
(C) consult and coordinate with existing statewide and
local programs including volunteer representation projects or
statewide legal services programs;
(D) provide referrals to victims who are seeking legal
representation in matters arising as a consequence of the
abuse or violence;
(E) participate in biannual meetings with other Pilot
Program grantees, American Bar Association Commission on
Domestic Violence, American Bar Association Committee on Pro
Bono and Public Service, and national domestic violence legal
technical assistance providers;
(F) receive referrals of victims seeking legal
representation from the National Domestic Violence Hotline
and other sources;
(G) receive and disseminate information regarding volunteer
attorneys and training and mentoring opportunities; and
(H) work with the Office on Violence Against Women, the
American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, and
the National Domestic Violence Legal Advisory Task Force to
assess the effectiveness of the Pilot Program.
(5) Eligibility for grants.--The Attorney General shall
award grants to statewide legal coordinators under this
subsection.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $750,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 and
2009 to fund the statewide coordinator positions and other
costs associated with the position in the 5 pilot program
States under this subsection.
(7) Evaluation and reporting.--An entity receiving a grant
under this subsection shall submit to the Department of
Justice a report detailing the activities taken with the
grant funds, including such additional information as the
agency shall require.
(b) National Program.--
(1) Purpose.--The purpose of the national program under
this subsection is to--
(A) provide for a coordinated system of ensuring that
domestic violence victims throughout the country have access
to safe, culturally and linguistically appropriate
representation in legal matters arising as a consequence of
the abuse or violence; and
(B) support statewide legal coordinators in each State to
coordinate referrals to domestic violence attorneys and to
train attorneys on related domestic violence issues,
including immigration matters.
(2) Grants.--The Attorney General shall award grants to
States for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) and to
support designated statewide legal coordinators under this
subsection.
(3) Role of the statewide legal coordinator.--The statewide
legal coordinator under this subsection shall be subject to
the requirements and responsibilities provided in subsection
(a)(4).
(4) Guidelines.--The Office on Violence Against Women, in
consultation with the Domestic Violence Legal Advisory Task
Force and the results detailed in the Study of Legal
Representation of Domestic Violence Victims, shall develop
guidelines for the implementation of the national program
under this section, based on the effectiveness of the Pilot
Program in improving victims' access to culturally and
linguistically appropriate legal representation in the pilot
States.
(5) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010
through 2013 to fund the statewide coordinator position in
every State and other costs associated with the position.
(6) Evaluation and reporting.--An entity receiving a grant
under this subsection shall submit to the Department of
Justice a report detailing the activities taken with the
grant funds, including such additional information as the
agency shall require.
SEC. 5. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE NATIONAL DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VOLUNTEER ATTORNEY NETWORK.
(a) Purposes.--The purpose of this section is to allow--
(1) national domestic violence legal technical assistance
providers to expand their services to provide training and
ongoing technical assistance to volunteer attorneys in the
National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network; and
(2) providers of domestic violence law to receive
additional funding to train and assist attorneys in the areas
of--
(A) custody and child support;
(B) employment;
(C) housing;
(D) immigrant victims' legal needs (including immigration,
protection order, family and public benefits issues); and
(E) interstate custody and relocation law.
[[Page S6879]]
(b) Grants.--The Attorney General shall award grants to
national domestic violence legal technical assistance
providers to expand their services to provide training and
ongoing technical assistance to volunteer attorneys in the
National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network,
statewide legal coordinators, the National Domestic Violence
Hotline and Internet-based legal referral organizations
described in section 1201(i)(1) of the Violence Against Women
Act of 2000, as added by section 6.
(c) Eligibility for Other Grants.--A receipt of an award
under this section shall not preclude the national domestic
violence legal technical assistance providers from receiving
additional grants under the Office on Violence Against
Women's Technical Assistance Program to carry out the
purposes of that program.
(d) Eligible Entities.--In this section, an eligible entity
is a national domestic violence legal technical assistance
provider that--
(1) has expertise on legal issues that arise in cases of
victims of domestic violence, dating violence and stalking,
including family, immigration, housing, protection order,
public benefits, custody, child support, interstate custody
and relocation, employment and other civil legal needs of
victims; and
(2) has an established record of providing technical
assistance and support to lawyers representing victims of
domestic violence.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $800,000 for
national domestic violence legal technical assistance
providers for each fiscal year from 2008 through 2013.
SEC. 6. NATIONAL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE LEGAL REFERRALS.
Section 1201 of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 3796gg-6) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(h) Legal Referrals by the National Domestic Violence
Hotline.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to
the National Domestic Violence Hotline (as authorized by
section 316 of the Family Violence Prevention and Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 10416)) to provide information about statewide
legal coordinators and legal services.
``(2) Use of funds.--Funds allocated to the National
Domestic Violence Hotline under this subsection shall be used
to--
``(A) update the Hotline's technology and systems to
reflect legal services and referrals to statewide legal
coordinators;
``(B) collaborate with the American Bar Association
Commission on Domestic Violence and the national domestic
violence legal technical assistance providers to train and
provide appropriate assistance to the Hotline's advocates on
legal services; and
``(C) maintain a network of legal services and statewide
legal coordinators and collaborate with the American Bar
Association Commission on Domestic Violence.
``(3) Authorization.--There are to be appropriated to carry
out this subsection $500,000 for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2013.
``(i) Legal Referrals by Internet-Based Services for
Domestic Violence Victims.--
``(1) In general.--The Attorney General may award grants to
Internet-based non-profit organizations with a demonstrated
expertise on domestic violence to provide State-specific
information about statewide legal coordinators and legal
services through the Internet.
``(2) Use of funds.--Funds allocated to Internet-based
organizations under this subsection shall be used to--
``(A) collaborate with the American Bar Association
Commission on Domestic Violence and the national domestic
violence legal technical assistance providers to train and
provide appropriate assistance to personnel on referring
legal services; and
``(B) maintain a network of legal services and statewide
legal coordinators, and collaborate with the American Bar
Association Commission on Domestic Violence and the National
Domestic Violence Hotline.
``(3) Authorization.--There are to be appropriated to carry
out this subsection $250,000 for each fiscal years of 2008
through 2013.''.
SEC. 7. STUDY OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
VICTIMS.
(a) In General.--The General Accountability Office shall
study the scope and quality of legal representation and
advocacy for victims of domestic violence, dating violence,
and stalking, including the provision of culturally and
linguistically appropriate services.
(b) Scope of Study.--The General Accountability Office
shall specifically assess the representation and advocacy
of--
(1) organizations providing direct legal services and other
support to victims of domestic violence, dating violence, and
stalking, including Legal Services Corporation grantees, non-
Legal Services Corporation legal services organizations,
domestic violence programs receiving Legal Assistance for
Victims grants or other Violence Against Women Act funds to
provide legal assistance, volunteer programs (including those
operated by bar associations and law firms), law schools
which operate domestic violence, and family law clinical
programs; and
(2) organizations providing support to direct legal
services delivery programs and to their volunteer attorneys,
including State coalitions on domestic violence, National
Legal Aid and Defender Association, the American Bar
Association Commission on Domestic Violence, the American Bar
Association Committee on Pro Bono and Public Service, State
bar associations, judicial organizations, and national
advocacy organizations (including the Legal Resource Center
on Violence Against Women, and the National Center on Full
Faith and Credit).
(c) Assessment.--The assessment shall, with respect to each
entity under subsection (b), include--
(1) what kind of legal assistance is provided to victims of
domestic violence, such as counseling or representation in
court proceedings;
(2) number of lawyers on staff;
(3) how legal services are being administered in a
culturally and linguistically appropriate manner, and the
number of multi-lingual advocates;
(4) what type of cases are related to the abuse, such as
protective orders, divorce, housing, and child custody
matters, and immigration filings;
(5) what referral mechanisms are used to match a lawyer
with a domestic violence victim;
(6) what, if any, collaborative partnerships are in place
between the legal services program and domestic violence
agencies;
(7) what existing technical assistance or training on
domestic violence and legal skills is provided to attorneys
providing legal services to victims of domestic violence;
(8) what training or technical assistance for attorneys
would improve the provision of legal services to victims of
domestic violence;
(9) how does the organization manage means-testing or
income requirements for clients;
(10) what, if any legal support is provided by non-lawyer
victim advocates; and
(11) whether they provide support to or sponsor a pro bono
legal program providing legal representation to victims of
domestic violence.
(d) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the General Accountability Office
shall submit to Congress a report on the findings and
recommendations of the study required by this section.
SEC. 8. ESTABLISH A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LEGAL ADVISORY TASK
FORCE.
(a) In General.--The Attorney General shall establish the
Domestic Violence Legal Advisory Task Force to provide
guidance for the implementation of the Study of Legal
Representation of Domestic Violence Victims, the Pilot
Program for the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney
Referral Project, and the National Program for the National
Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Referral Project.
(b) Composition.--The Task Force established under this
section shall be composed of experts in providing legal
assistance to domestic violence victims and developing
effective volunteer programs providing legal assistance to
domestic violence victims, including judges with expertise on
domestic violence, individuals with experience representing
low-income domestic violence victims, and private bar members
involved with volunteer legal services.
(c) Responsibilities.--The Task Force shall provide--
(1) ongoing advice to the American Bar Association
Commission on Domestic Violence, the National Domestic
Violence Hotline, and the Statewide Coordinators regarding
implementation of the Pilot Program and the National Program
of the Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Referral Project;
(2) recommendations to the Office on Violence Against Women
regarding the selection of the 5 sites for the Pilot Program;
and
(3) attend regular meetings covered by American Bar
Association Commission or Domestic Violence.
(d) Report.--The Task Force shall report to Congress every
2 years on its work under this section.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $100,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
______
By Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. Allard, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Bond, Mr.
Durbin, Ms. Collins, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Akaka, Mrs. Clinton, Mr.
Whitehouse, Mr. Levin, Mr. Brown, and Mrs. Boxer):
S. 1518. A bill to amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
to reauthorize the Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I introduce, along with Senators Allard,
Mikulski, Bond, Durbin, Collins, Schumer, Akaka, Clinton, Whitehouse,
Levin, Brown, and Boxer, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness
Act of 2007, CPEHA. This legislation would reauthorize and amend the
housing titles of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987.
Specifically, our bill would realign the incentives behind the
Department of Housing and Urban Development's homelessness assistance
programs to accomplish the goals of preventing and ending homelessness.
[[Page S6880]]
According to the Homelessness Research Institute at the National
Alliance to End Homelessness, as many as 3.5 million Americans
experience homelessness each year. On any one night, approximately
744,000 men, women, and children are without homes.
Many of these people have served our country in uniform. According to
the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans, nearly 200,000 veterans
of the United States armed forces are homeless on any given night, and
about one-third of homeless men are veterans.
Statistics regarding the number of children who experience
homelessness are especially troubling. Each year, it is estimated that
at least 1.35 million children experience homelessness. Over 900,000
homeless children and youth were identified and enrolled in public
schools in the 2005-2006 school year. However, this Department of
Education count does not include preschool children, and over 40
percent of homeless children are under the age of five. Whatever their
age, we know that children who are homeless are in poorer health, have
developmental delays, and suffer academically.
In addition, many of those who are homeless have a disability.
According to the Homelessness Research Institute, about 23 percent of
homeless people were found to be ``chronically homeless,'' which
according to the current HUD definition means that they are homeless
for long periods of time or homeless repeatedly, and they have a
disability. For many of these individuals and families, housing alone,
without some attached services, may not be enough.
Finally, as rents have soared and affordable housing units have
disappeared from the market during the past several years, even more
working Americans have been left unable to afford housing. According to
the National Low Income Housing Coalition's most recent ``Out of
Reach'' report, nowhere in the country can a minimum wage earner afford
a one-bedroom home. Eighty-eight percent of renters in cities live in
areas where they cannot afford the fair market rent for a two-bedroom
rental even with two minimum wage jobs. Low income renters who live
paycheck to paycheck are in precarious circumstances and sometimes must
make tough choices between paying rent and buying food, prescription
drugs, or other necessities. If one unforeseen event occurs in their
lives, they can end up homeless.
So why should the Federal Government work to help prevent and end
homelessness? Simply put, we cannot afford not to address this problem.
Homelessness leads to untold costs, including expenses for emergency
rooms, jails, shelters, foster care, detoxification, and emergency
mental health treatment.
According to a number of studies, it costs just as much, if not more
in overall expenditures, to allow men, women, and children to remain
homeless as it does to provide them with assistance and get them back
on the road to self-sufficiency.
It has been 20 years since the enactment of the Steward B. McKinney
Homeless Assistance Act, and we have learned a lot about the problem of
homelessness since then. At the time of its adoption in 1987, this
legislation was viewed as an emergency response to a national crisis,
and was to be followed by measures to prevent homelessness and to
create more systemic solutions to the problem. It is now time to take
what we have learned during the past 20 years, and put those best
practices and proposals into action.
First and foremost, our bill would consolidate HUD's three main
competitive homelessness programs, Supportive Housing Program, Shelter
Plus Care, and Moderate Rehabilitation/Single Room Occupancy, into one
program called the Community Homeless Assistance Program. The
consolidation would reduce the administrative burden on communities
caused by different program requirements. It also would allow funding
to be used for an array of eligible activities maximizing flexibility,
creativity, and local-decision making.
Second, the bill would create a new prevention title that would allow
communities to apply for funding to prevent homelessness. This would
allow them to serve people who move frequently for economic reasons,
are doubled up, are about to be evicted, live in severely overcrowded
housing, or otherwise live in an unstable situation that puts them at
risk of homelessness. The program could fund short- to medium-term
housing assistance, housing relocation and stabilization, and
supportive services. The program would be authorized for up to $250
million in fiscal year 2008.
Third, the bill would create a more flexible set of requirements for
rural communities by modifying HUD's long-dormant Rural Homelessness
Grant Program. Under the new requirements, a rural community could use
funds for homelessness prevention and housing stabilization, in
addition to transitional housing, permanent housing, and supportive
services. The application process for these funds would be streamlined
to be more consistent with the capacities of rural homelessness
programs.
Fourth, HUD would be required to provide incentives for communities
to use proven strategies to end homelessness. These strategies would
include permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless people,
rapid rehousing programs for homeless families, and other research-
based strategies that HUD, after public comment, determines are
effective.
Fifth, thirty percent of total funds available nationally would be
allocated for permanent housing for individuals with disabilities or
families headed by a person with disabilities. At least 10 percent of
overall funds would be allocated for permanently housing families with
children.
Sixth, communities that demonstrate results, reducing the number of
people who become homeless, the length of time people are homeless, and
recidivism back into homelessness--would be allowed to use their
homeless assistance funding more flexibly and to serve groups that are
at risk of becoming homeless.
Finally, leasing, rental assistance, and operating costs of permanent
housing programs would be renewed for 1 year at a time through the
section 8 housing voucher account, provided that the applicant
demonstrates need and compliance with appropriate standards.
There is a growing consensus on ways to help communities break the
cycle of repeated and prolonged homelessness. If we combine Federal
dollars with the right incentives to local communities, we can prevent
and end long-term homelessness.
This bipartisan legislation seeks to do just that. It will reward
communities for initiatives that prevent and end homelessness.
Groups that are endorsing the Community Partnership to End
Homelessness Act include: The National Alliance to End Homelessness;
the U.S. Conference of Mayors; the National Association of Counties;
National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies; National
Community Development Association; the National Housing Conference; the
Corporation for Supportive Housing; National Alliance on Mental
Illness; Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities Housing Task Force;
Habitat for Humanity; Technical Assistance Collaborative; and the
Housing Assistance Council.
The Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act will set us on the
path to meeting an important national goal. I hope my colleagues will
join us in supporting this bill and other homelessness prevention
efforts.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 1518
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 ``Community
Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings and purpose.
Sec. 3. United States Interagency Council on Homelessness.
Sec. 4. Housing assistance general provisions.
Sec. 5. Emergency homelessness prevention and shelter grants program.
Sec. 6. Homeless assistance program.
Sec. 7. Rural housing stability assistance.
[[Page S6881]]
Sec. 8. Funds to prevent homelessness and stabilize housing for
precariously housed individuals and families.
Sec. 9. Repeals and conforming amendments.
Sec. 10. Effective date.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
Section 102 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act
(42 U.S.C. 11301) is amended to read as follows:
``SEC. 102. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
``(a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
``(1) the United States faces a crisis of individuals and
families who lack basic affordable housing and appropriate
shelter;
``(2) assistance from the Federal Government is an
important factor in the success of efforts by State and local
governments and the private sector to address the problem of
homelessness in a comprehensive manner;
``(3) there are several Federal Government programs to
assist persons experiencing homelessness, including programs
for individuals with disabilities, veterans, children, and
youth;
``(4) homeless assistance programs must be evaluated on the
basis of their effectiveness in reducing homelessness,
transitioning individuals and families to permanent housing
and stability, and optimizing their self-sufficiency;
``(5) States and units of general local government
receiving Federal block grant and other Federal grant funds
must be evaluated on the basis of their effectiveness in--
``(A) implementing plans to appropriately discharge
individuals to and from mainstream service systems; and
``(B) reducing barriers to participation in mainstream
programs, as identified in--
``(i) a report by the Government Accountability Office
entitled `Homelessness: Coordination and Evaluation of
Programs Are Essential', issued February 26, 1999; or
``(ii) a report by the Government Accountability Office
entitled `Homelessness: Barriers to Using Mainstream
Programs', issued July 6, 2000;
``(6) an effective plan for reducing homelessness should
provide a comprehensive housing system (including permanent
housing and, as needed, transitional housing) that recognizes
that, while some individuals and families experiencing
homelessness attain economic viability and independence
utilizing transitional housing and then permanent housing,
others can reenter society directly and optimize self-
sufficiency through acquiring permanent housing;
``(7) supportive housing activities include the provision
of permanent housing or transitional housing, and appropriate
supportive services, in an environment that can meet the
short-term or long-term needs of persons experiencing
homelessness as they reintegrate into mainstream society;
``(8) homeless housing and supportive services programs
within a community are most effective when they are developed
and operated as part of an inclusive, collaborative, locally
driven homeless planning process that involves as decision
makers persons experiencing homelessness, advocates for
persons experiencing homelessness, service organizations,
government officials, business persons, neighborhood
advocates, and other community members;
``(9) homelessness should be treated as a symptom of many
neighborhood, community, and system problems, whose remedies
require a comprehensive approach integrating all available
resources;
``(10) there are many private sector entities, particularly
nonprofit organizations, that have successfully operated
outcome-effective homeless programs;
``(11) Federal homeless assistance should supplement other
public and private funding provided by communities for
housing and supportive services for low-income households;
``(12) the Federal Government has a responsibility to
establish partnerships with State and local governments and
private sector entities to address comprehensively the
problems of homelessness; and
``(13) the results of Federal programs targeted for persons
experiencing homelessness have been positive.
``(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act--
``(1) to create a unified and performance-based process for
allocating and administering funds under title IV;
``(2) to encourage comprehensive, collaborative local
planning of housing and services programs for persons
experiencing homelessness;
``(3) to focus the resources and efforts of the public and
private sectors on ending and preventing homelessness;
``(4) to provide funds for programs to assist individuals
and families in the transition from homelessness, and to
prevent homelessness for those vulnerable to homelessness;
``(5) to consolidate the separate homeless assistance
programs carried out under title IV (consisting of the
supportive housing program and related innovative programs,
the safe havens program, the section 8 assistance program for
single-room occupancy dwellings, and the shelter plus care
program) into a single program with specific eligible
activities;
``(6) to allow flexibility and creativity in re-thinking
solutions to homelessness, including alternative housing
strategies, outcome-effective service delivery, and the
involvement of persons experiencing homelessness in decision-
making regarding opportunities for their long-term stability,
growth, well-being, and optimum self-sufficiency; and
``(7) to ensure that multiple Federal agencies are involved
in the provision of housing, health care, human services,
employment, and education assistance, as appropriate for the
missions of the agencies, to persons experiencing
homelessness, through the funding provided for implementation
of programs carried out under this Act and other programs
targeted for persons experiencing homelessness, and
mainstream funding, and to promote coordination among those
Federal agencies, including providing funding for a United
States Interagency Council on Homelessness to advance such
coordination.''.
SEC. 3. UNITED STATES INTERAGENCY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS.
Title II of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42
U.S.C. 11311 et seq.) is amended--
(1) in section 201 (42 U.S.C. 11311), by striking the
period at the end and inserting the following: ``whose
mission shall be to develop and coordinate the implementation
of a national strategy to prevent and end homelessness while
maximizing the effectiveness of the Federal Government in
contributing to an end to homelessness in the United
States.'';
(2) in section 202 (42 U.S.C. 11312)--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``(16)'' and inserting ``(19)''; and
(ii) by inserting after paragraph (15) the following:
``(16) The Commissioner of Social Security, or the designee
of the Commissioner.
``(17) The Attorney General of the United States, or the
designee of the Attorney General.
``(18) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget,
or the designee of the Director.'';
(B) in subsection (c), by striking ``annually'' and
inserting ``2 times each year''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(e) Administration.--The Assistant to the President for
Domestic Policy within the Executive Office of the President
shall oversee the functioning of the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness to ensure Federal
interagency collaboration and program coordination to focus
on preventing and ending homelessness, to increase access to
mainstream programs (as identified in a report by the
Government Accountability Office entitled `Homelessness:
Barriers to Using Mainstream Programs', issued July 6, 2000)
by persons experiencing homelessness, to eliminate the
barriers to participation in those programs, to implement a
Federal plan to prevent and end homelessness, and to identify
Federal resources that can be expended to prevent and end
homelessness.'';
(3) in section 203(a) (42 U.S.C. 11313(a))--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), (5),
(6), and (7) as paragraphs (2), (3), (4), (5), (8), (9), and
(10), respectively;
(B) by inserting before paragraph (2), as redesignated by
subparagraph (A), the following:
``(1) not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007,
develop and submit to the President and to Congress a
National Strategic Plan to End Homelessness;'';
(C) in paragraph (5), as redesignated by subparagraph (A),
by striking ``at least 2, but in no case more than 5'' and
inserting ``not less than 5, but in no case more than 10'';
and
(D) by inserting after paragraph (5), as redesignated by
subparagraph (A), the following:
``(6) encourage the creation of State Interagency Councils
on Homelessness and the formulation of multi-year plans to
end homelessness at State, city, and county levels;
``(7) develop mechanisms to ensure access by persons
experiencing homelessness to all Federal, State, and local
programs for which the persons are eligible, and to verify
collaboration among entities within a community that receive
Federal funding under programs targeted for persons
experiencing homelessness, and other programs for which
persons experiencing homelessness are eligible, including
mainstream programs identified by the Government
Accountability Office in the 2 reports described in section
102(a)(5)(B);''; and
(4) by striking section 208 (42 U.S.C. 11318) and inserting
the following:
``SEC. 208. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $3,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be
necessary for fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.''.
SEC. 4. HOUSING ASSISTANCE GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Subtitle A of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11361 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking the subtitle heading and inserting the
following:
``Subtitle A--General Provisions'';
(2) by redesignating section 401 (42 U.S.C. 11361) as
section 403;
(3) by redesignating section 402 (42 U.S.C. 11362) as
section 406;
(4) by inserting before section 403 (as redesignated in
paragraph (2)) the following:
``SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.
``In this title, the following definitions shall apply:
``(1) Chronically homeless.--
[[Page S6882]]
``(A) In general.--The term `chronically homeless', used
with respect to an individual or family, means an individual
or family who--
``(i) is homeless and lives or resides in a place not meant
for human habitation or in an emergency shelter;
``(ii) has been homeless and living or residing in a place
not meant for human habitation or in an emergency shelter
continuously for at least 1 year or on at least 4 separate
occasions in the last 3 years; and
``(iii) has an adult head of household with a diagnosable
substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental
disability (as defined in section 102 of the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 (42
U.S.C. 15002)), or chronic physical illness or disability,
including the co-occurrence of 2 or more of those conditions.
``(2) Collaborative applicant.--The term `collaborative
applicant' means an entity that--
``(A) carries out the duties specified in section 402;
``(B) serves as the applicant for project sponsors who
jointly submit a single application for a grant under
subtitle C in accordance with a collaborative process; and
``(C) if the entity is a legal entity and is awarded such
grant, receives such grant directly from the Secretary.
``(3) Collaborative application.--The term `collaborative
application' means an application for a grant under subtitle
C that--
``(A) satisfies section 422; and
``(B) is submitted to the Secretary by a collaborative
applicant.
``(4) Consolidated plan.--The term `Consolidated Plan'
means a comprehensive housing affordability strategy and
community development plan required in part 91 of title 24,
Code of Federal Regulations.
``(5) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means,
with respect to a subtitle, a public entity, a private
entity, or an entity that is a combination of public and
private entities, that is eligible to receive directly grant
amounts under that subtitle.
``(6) Geographic area.--The term `geographic area' means a
State, metropolitan city, urban county, town, village, or
other nonentitlement area, or a combination or consortia of
such, in the United States, as described in section 106 of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C.
5306).
``(7) Homeless individual with a disability.--
``(A) In general.--The term `homeless individual with a
disability' means an individual who is homeless, as defined
in section 103, and has a disability that--
``(i)(I) is expected to be long-continuing or of indefinite
duration;
``(II) substantially impedes the individual's ability to
live independently;
``(III) could be improved by the provision of more suitable
housing conditions; and
``(IV) is a physical, mental, or emotional impairment,
including an impairment caused by alcohol or drug abuse;
``(ii) is a developmental disability, as defined in section
102 of the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 15002); or
``(iii) is the disease of acquired immunodeficiency
syndrome or any condition arising from the etiologic agency
for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome.
``(B) Rule.--Nothing in clause (iii) of subparagraph (A)
shall be construed to limit eligibility under clause (i) or
(ii) of subparagraph (A).
``(8) Legal entity.--The term `legal entity' means--
``(A) an entity described in section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under
section 501(a) of that Code;
``(B) an instrumentality of State or local government; or
``(C) a consortium of instrumentalities of State or local
governments that has constituted itself as an entity.
``(9) Metropolitan city; urban county; nonentitlement
area.--The terms `metropolitan city', `urban county', and
`nonentitlement area' have the meanings given such terms in
section 102(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)).
``(10) New.--The term `new', used with respect to housing,
means housing for which no assistance has been provided under
this title.
``(11) Operating costs.--The term `operating costs' means
expenses incurred by a project sponsor operating transitional
housing or permanent housing under this title with respect
to--
``(A) the administration, maintenance, repair, and security
of such housing;
``(B) utilities, fuel, furnishings, and equipment for such
housing; or
``(C) coordination of services as needed to ensure long-
term housing stability.
``(12) Outpatient health services.--The term `outpatient
health services' means outpatient health care services,
mental health services, and outpatient substance abuse
treatment services.
``(13) Permanent housing.--The term `permanent housing'
means community-based housing without a designated length of
stay, and includes permanent supportive housing for homeless
individuals with disabilities and homeless families that
include such an individual who is an adult.
``(14) Private nonprofit organization.--The term `private
nonprofit organization' means an organization--
``(A) no part of the net earnings of which inures to the
benefit of any member, founder, contributor, or individual;
``(B) that has a voluntary board;
``(C) that has an accounting system, or has designated a
fiscal agent in accordance with requirements established by
the Secretary; and
``(D) that practices nondiscrimination in the provision of
assistance.
``(15) Project.--The term `project', used with respect to
activities carried out under subtitle C, means eligible
activities described in section 423(a), undertaken pursuant
to a specific endeavor, such as serving a particular
population or providing a particular resource.
``(16) Project-based.--The term `project-based', used with
respect to rental assistance, means assistance provided
pursuant to a contract that--
``(A) is between--
``(i) a project sponsor; and
``(ii) an owner of a structure that exists as of the date
the contract is entered into; and
``(B) provides that rental assistance payments shall be
made to the owner and that the units in the structure shall
be occupied by eligible persons for not less than the term of
the contract.
``(17) Project sponsor.--The term `project sponsor', used
with respect to proposed eligible activities, means the
organization directly responsible for the proposed eligible
activities.
``(18) Recipient.--Except as used in subtitle B, the term
`recipient' means an eligible entity who--
``(A) submits an application for a grant under section 422
that is approved by the Secretary;
``(B) receives the grant directly from the Secretary to
support approved projects described in the application; and
``(C)(i) serves as a project sponsor for the projects; or
``(ii) awards the funds to project sponsors to carry out
the projects.
``(19) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development.
``(20) Serious mental illness.--The term `serious mental
illness' means a severe and persistent mental illness or
emotional impairment that seriously limits a person's ability
to live independently.
``(21) State.--Except as used in subtitle B, the term
`State' means each of the several States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, and any other territory or possession of the United
States.
``(22) Supportive services.--The term `supportive services'
means the supportive services described in section 425(c).
``(23) Tenant-based.--The term `tenant-based', used with
respect to rental assistance, means assistance that allows an
eligible person to select a housing unit in which such person
will live using rental assistance provided under subtitle C,
except that if necessary to assure that the provision of
supportive services to a person participating in a program is
feasible, a recipient or project sponsor may require that the
person live--
``(A) in a particular structure or unit for not more than
the first year of the participation; and
``(B) within a particular geographic area for the full
period of the participation, or the period remaining after
the period referred to in subparagraph (A).
``(24) Transitional housing.--The term `transitional
housing' means housing, the purpose of which is to facilitate
the movement of individuals and families experiencing
homelessness to permanent housing within 24 months or such
longer period as the Secretary determines necessary.
``(25) Unified funding agency.--The term `unified funding
agency' means a collaborative applicant that performs the
duties described in section 402(f).
``SEC. 402. COLLABORATIVE APPLICANTS.
``(a) Establishment and Designation.--A collaborative
applicant shall be established for a geographic area by the
relevant parties in that geographic area to--
``(1) submit an application for amounts under this
subtitle; and
``(2) perform the duties specified in subsection (e) and,
if applicable, subsection (f).
``(b) No Requirement To Be a Legal Entity.--An entity may
be established to serve as a collaborative applicant under
this section without being a legal entity.
``(c) Remedial Action.--If the Secretary finds that a
collaborative applicant for a geographic area does not meet
the requirements of this section, or if there is no
collaborative applicant for a geographic area, the Secretary
may take remedial action to ensure fair distribution of grant
amounts under subtitle C to eligible entities within that
area. Such measures may include designating another body as a
collaborative applicant, or permitting other eligible
entities to apply directly for grants.
``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to displace conflict of interest or government fair
practices laws, or their equivalent, that govern applicants
for grant amounts under subtitles B and C.
``(e) Duties.--A collaborative applicant shall--
[[Page S6883]]
``(1) design a collaborative process for the development of
an application under subtitle C, and for evaluating the
outcomes of projects for which funds are awarded under
subtitle B, in such a manner as to provide information
necessary for the Secretary--
``(A) to determine compliance with--
``(i) the program requirements under section 425; and
``(ii) the selection criteria described under section 427;
and
``(B) to establish priorities for funding projects in the
geographic area involved;
``(2) participate in the Consolidated Plan for the
geographic area served by the collaborative applicant; and
``(3) ensure operation of, and consistent participation by,
project sponsors in a community-wide homeless management
information system for purposes of--
``(A) collecting unduplicated counts of individuals and
families experiencing homelessness;
``(B) analyzing patterns of use of assistance provided
under subtitles B and C for the geographic area involved; and
``(C) providing information to project sponsors and
applicants for needs analyses and funding priorities.
``(f) Unified Funding.--
``(1) In general.--In addition to the duties described in
subsection (e), a collaborative applicant shall receive from
the Secretary and distribute to other project sponsors in the
applicable geographic area funds for projects to be carried
out by such other project sponsors, if--
``(A) the collaborative applicant--
``(i) applies to undertake such collection and distribution
responsibilities in an application submitted under this
subtitle; and
``(ii) is selected to perform such responsibilities by the
Secretary; or
``(B) the Secretary designates the collaborative applicant
as the unified funding agency in the geographic area, after--
``(i) a finding by the Secretary that the applicant--
``(I) has the capacity to perform such responsibilities;
and
``(II) would serve the purposes of this Act as they apply
to the geographic area; and
``(ii) the Secretary provides the collaborative applicant
with the technical assistance necessary to perform such
responsibilities as such assistance is agreed to by the
collaborative applicant.
``(2) Required actions by a unified funding agency.--A
collaborative applicant that is either selected or designated
as a unified funding agency for a geographic area under
paragraph (1) shall--
``(A) require each project sponsor who is funded by a grant
received under subtitle C to establish such fiscal control
and fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure
the proper disbursal of, and accounting for, Federal funds
awarded to the project sponsor under subtitle C in order to
ensure that all financial transactions carried out under
subtitle C are conducted, and records maintained, in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and
``(B) arrange for an annual survey, audit, or evaluation of
the financial records of each project carried out by a
project sponsor funded by a grant received under subtitle C.
``(g) Conflict of Interest.--No board member of a
collaborative applicant may participate in decisions of the
collaborative applicant concerning the award of a grant, or
provision of other financial benefits, to such member or the
organization that such member represents.'';
(5) by inserting after section 403 (as redesignated in
paragraph (2)) the following:
``SEC. 404. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
``(a) Technical Assistance for Project Sponsors.--The
Secretary shall make effective technical assistance available
to private nonprofit organizations and other nongovernmental
entities, States, metropolitan cities, urban counties, and
counties that are not urban counties that are potential
project sponsors, in order to implement effective planning
processes for preventing and ending homelessness, to optimize
self-sufficiency among individuals experiencing homelessness,
and to improve their capacity to become project sponsors.
``(b) Technical Assistance for Collaborative Applicants.--
The Secretary shall make effective technical assistance
available to collaborative applicants--
``(1) to improve their ability to carry out the duties
required under subsections (e) and (f) of section 402;
``(2) to design and execute outcome-effective strategies
for preventing and ending homelessness in their geographic
areas consistent with the provisions of this title; and
``(3) to design and implement a community-wide process for
assessing the performance of the applicant and project
sponsors in meeting the purposes of this Act.
``(c) Reservation.--The Secretary may reserve not more than
1 percent of the funds made available for any fiscal year for
carrying out subtitles B and C, to make available technical
assistance under subsections (a) and (b).
``SEC. 405. APPEALS.
``(a) In General.--Not later than 3 months after the date
of enactment of the Community Partnership to End Homelessness
Act of 2007, the Secretary shall establish a timely appeal
procedure for grant amounts awarded or denied under this
subtitle pursuant to an application for funding.
``(b) Process.--The Secretary shall ensure that appeals
procedure established under subsection (a) permits appeals
submitted by--
``(1) collaborative applicants;
``(2) entities carrying out homeless housing and services
projects (including emergency shelters and homelessness
prevention programs); and
``(3) homeless planning bodies not established as
collaborative applicants.''; and
(6) by inserting after section 406 (as redesignated in
paragraph (2)) the following:
``SEC. 407. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $1,800,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as
may be necessary for fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, and
2012.''.
SEC. 5. EMERGENCY HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION AND SHELTER GRANTS
PROGRAM.
Subtitle B of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11371 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking the subtitle heading and inserting the
following:
``Subtitle B--Emergency Homelessness Prevention and Shelter Grants
Program'';
(2) by striking section 412 (42 U.S.C. 11372) and inserting
the following:
``SEC. 412. GRANT ASSISTANCE.
``The Secretary shall make grants to States and local
governments (and to private nonprofit organizations providing
assistance to persons experiencing homelessness, in the case
of grants made with reallocated amounts) for the purpose of
carrying out activities described in section 414.
``SEC. 412A. AMOUNT AND ALLOCATION OF ASSISTANCE.
``(a) In General.--Of the amount made available to carry
out this subtitle and subtitle C for a fiscal year, the
Secretary shall allocate nationally not less than 10 nor more
than 15 percent of such amount for activities described in
section 414.
``(b) Allocation.--An entity that receives a grant under
section 412, and serves an area that includes 1 or more
geographic areas (or portions of such areas) served by
collaborative applicants that submit applications under
subtitle C, shall allocate the funds made available through
the grant to carry out activities described in section 414,
in consultation with the collaborative applicants.'';
(3) in section 413(b) (42 U.S.C. 11373(b)), by striking
``amounts appropriated'' and all that follows through ``for
any'' and inserting ``amounts appropriated under section 407
and made available to carry out this subtitle for any'';
(4) by striking section 414 (42 U.S.C. 11374) and inserting
the following:
``SEC. 414. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.
``Assistance provided under section 412 may be used for the
following activities:
``(1) The renovation, major rehabilitation, or conversion
of buildings to be used as emergency shelters.
``(2) The provision of essential services, including
services concerned with employment, health, education, family
support services for homeless youth, alcohol or drug abuse
prevention or treatment, or mental health treatment, if such
essential services have not been provided by the local
government during any part of the immediately preceding 12-
month period, or the use of assistance under this subtitle
would complement the provision of those essential services.
``(3) Maintenance, operation, insurance, provision of
utilities, and provision of furnishings.
``(4) Housing relocation or stabilization services for
individuals and families at risk of homelessness, including
housing search, mediation or outreach to property owners,
legal services, credit repair, providing security or utility
deposits, short- or medium-term rental assistance, assistance
with moving costs, or other activities that are effective
at--
``(A) stabilizing individuals and families in their current
housing; or
``(B) quickly moving such individuals and families to other
housing before such individuals and families become
homeless.'';
(5) by repealing section 417 (42 U.S.C. 11377); and
(6) by redesignating section 418 as section 417.
SEC. 6. HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
Subtitle C of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11381 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by striking the subtitle heading and inserting the
following:
``Subtitle C--Homeless Assistance Program'';
(2) by striking sections 421 through 424 (42 U.S.C. 11381
et seq.) and inserting the following:
``SEC. 421. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of this subtitle are--
``(1) to promote community-wide commitment to the goal of
ending homelessness;
``(2) to provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers
and State and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless
individuals and families while minimizing the trauma and
dislocation caused to individuals, families, and communities
by homelessness;
``(3) to promote access to, and effective utilization of,
mainstream programs identified by the Government
Accountability Office in the 2 reports described in section
102(a)(5)(B) and programs funded with State or local
resources; and
[[Page S6884]]
``(4) to optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and
families experiencing homelessness.
``SEC. 422. COMMUNITY HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
``(a) Projects.--The Secretary shall award grants, on a
competitive basis, and using the selection criteria described
in section 427, to carry out eligible activities under this
subtitle for projects that meet the program requirements
under section 426, either by directly awarding funds to
project sponsors or by awarding funds to unified funding
agencies.
``(b) Notification of Funding Availability.--The Secretary
shall release a Notification of Funding Availability for
grants awarded under this subtitle for a fiscal year not
later than 3 months after the date of enactment of the
appropriate Act making appropriations for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development for the fiscal year.
``(c) Applications.--
``(1) Submission to the secretary.--To be eligible to
receive a grant under subsection (a), a project sponsor or
unified funding agency in a geographic area shall submit an
application to the Secretary at such time and in such manner
as the Secretary may require, and containing--
``(A) such information as the Secretary determines
necessary--
``(i) to determine compliance with the program requirements
and selection criteria under this subtitle; and
``(ii) to establish priorities for funding projects in the
geographic area.
``(2) Announcement of awards.--The Secretary shall
announce, within 4 months after the last date for the
submission of applications described in this subsection for a
fiscal year, the grants conditionally awarded under
subsection (a) for that fiscal year.
``(d) Obligation, Distribution, and Utilization of Funds.--
``(1) Requirements for obligation.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 9 months after the
announcement referred to in subsection (c)(2), each recipient
of a grant announced under such subsection shall, with
respect to a project to be funded through such grant, meet,
or cause the project sponsor to meet, all requirements for
the obligation of funds for such project, including site
control, matching funds, and environmental review
requirements, except as provided in subparagraph (C).
``(B) Acquisition, rehabilitation, or construction.--Not
later than 15 months after the announcement referred to in
subsection (c)(2), each recipient of a grant announced under
such subsection seeking the obligation of funds for
acquisition of housing, rehabilitation of housing, or
construction of new housing for a grant announced under such
subsection shall meet all requirements for the obligation of
those funds, including site control, matching funds, and
environmental review requirements.
``(C) Extensions.--At the discretion of the Secretary, and
in compelling circumstances, the Secretary may extend the
date by which a recipient of a grant announced under
subsection (c)(2) shall meet or cause a project sponsor to
meet the requirements described in subparagraphs (A) and (B)
if the Secretary determines that compliance with the
requirements was delayed due to factors beyond the reasonable
control of the recipient or project sponsor. Such factors may
include difficulties in obtaining site control for a proposed
project, completing the process of obtaining secure financing
for the project, or completing the technical submission
requirements for the project.
``(2) Obligation.--Not later than 45 days after a recipient
meets or causes a project sponsor to meet the requirements
described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall obligate the
funds for the grant involved.
``(3) Distribution.--A unified funding agency that receives
funds through a grant under this section--
``(A) shall distribute the funds to project sponsors (in
advance of expenditures by the project sponsors); and
``(B) shall distribute the appropriate portion of the funds
to a project sponsor not later than 45 days after receiving a
request for such distribution from the project sponsor.
``(4) Expenditure of funds.--The Secretary may establish a
date by which funds made available through a grant announced
under subsection (c)(2) for a homeless assistance project
shall be entirely expended by the recipient or project
sponsors involved. The Secretary shall recapture the funds
not expended by such date. The Secretary shall reallocate the
funds for another homeless assistance and prevention project
that meets the requirements of this subtitle to be carried
out, if possible and appropriate, in the same geographic area
as the area served through the original grant.
``(e) Renewal Funding for Unsuccessful Applicants.--The
Secretary may renew funding for a specific project previously
funded under this subtitle that the Secretary determines
meets the purposes of this subtitle, and was included as part
of a total application that met the criteria of subsection
(c), even if the application was not selected to receive
grant assistance. The Secretary may renew the funding for a
period of not more than 1 year, and under such conditions as
the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(f) Considerations in Determining Renewal Funding.--When
providing renewal funding for leasing or rental assistance
for permanent housing, the Secretary shall take into account
increases in the fair market rents for modest rental property
in the geographic area.
``(g) More Than 1 Application for a Geographic Area.--If
more than 1 collaborative applicant applies for funds for a
geographic area, the Secretary shall award funds to the
collaborative applicant with the highest score based on the
selection criteria set forth in section 427.
``SEC. 423. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary may award grants to
project sponsors under section 422 to carry out homeless
assistance projects that consist of 1 or more of the
following eligible activities:
``(1) Construction of new housing units to provide
transitional or permanent housing to homeless individuals and
families.
``(2) Acquisition or rehabilitation of a structure to
provide supportive services or to provide transitional or
permanent housing, other than emergency shelter, to homeless
individuals and families.
``(3) Leasing of property, or portions of property, not
owned by the recipient or project sponsor involved, for use
in providing transitional or permanent housing to homeless
individuals and families, or providing supportive services to
homeless individuals and families.
``(4) Provision of rental assistance to provide
transitional or permanent housing to homeless individuals and
families. The rental assistance may include tenant-based or
project-based rental assistance.
``(5) Payment of operating costs for housing units assisted
under this subtitle.
``(6) Provision of supportive services to homeless
individuals and families, or individuals and families who in
the prior 6 months have been homeless but are currently
residing in permanent housing.
``(7) Provision of rehousing services, including housing
search, mediation or outreach to property owners, credit
repair, providing security or utility deposits, rental
assistance for a final month at a location, assistance with
moving costs, or other activities that--
``(A) are effective at moving homeless individuals and
families immediately into housing; or
``(B) may benefit individuals and families who in the prior
6 months have been homeless, but are currently residing in
permanent housing.
``(8) In the case of a collaborative applicant that is a
legal entity, performance of the duties described under
section 402(e)(3).
``(9) Operation of, participation in, and ensuring
consistent participation by project sponsors in, a community-
wide homeless management information system.
``(10) In the case of a collaborative applicant that is a
legal entity, payment of administrative costs related to
meeting the requirements described in paragraphs (1) and (2)
of section 402(e), for which the collaborative applicant may
use not more than 3 percent of the total funds made available
in the geographic area under this subtitle for such costs, in
addition to funds used under paragraph (10).
``(11) In the case of a collaborative applicant that is a
unified funding agency under section 402(f), payment of
administrative costs related to meeting the requirements of
that section, for which the unified funding agency may use
not more than 3 percent of the total funds made available in
the geographic area under this subtitle for such costs, in
addition to funds used under paragraph (10).
``(12) Payment of administrative costs to project sponsors,
for which each project sponsor may use not more than 5
percent of the total funds made available to that project
sponsor through this subtitle for such costs.
``(b) Minimum Grant Terms.--The Secretary may impose
minimum grant terms of up to 5 years for new projects
providing permanent housing.
``(c) Use Restrictions.--
``(1) Acquisition, rehabilitation, and new construction.--A
project that consists of activities described in paragraph
(1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall be operated for the
purpose specified in the application submitted for the
project under section 422 for not less than 15 years.
``(2) Other activities.--A project that consists of
activities described in any of paragraphs (3) through (12) of
subsection (a) shall be operated for the purpose specified in
the application submitted for the project under section 422
for the duration of the grant period involved.
``(3) Conversion.--If the recipient or project sponsor
carrying out a project that provides transitional or
permanent housing submits a request to the collaborative
applicant or unified funding agency involved to carry out
instead a project for the direct benefit of low-income
persons, and the collaborative applicant or unified funding
agency determines that the initial project is no longer
needed to provide transitional or permanent housing, the
collaborative applicant or unified funding agency may
recommend that the Secretary approve the project described in
the request and authorize the recipient or project sponsor to
carry out that project. If the collaborative applicant or
unified funding agency is the recipient or project sponsor,
it shall submit such a request directly to the Secretary who
shall determine if the conversion of the project is
appropriate.
[[Page S6885]]
``(d) Repayment of Assistance and Prevention of Undue
Benefits.--
``(1) Repayment.--If a recipient (or a project sponsor
receiving funds from the recipient) receives assistance under
section 422 to carry out a project that consists of
activities described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection
(a) and the project ceases to provide transitional or
permanent housing--
``(A) earlier than 10 years after operation of the project
begins, the Secretary shall require the recipient (or the
project sponsor receiving funds from the recipient) to repay
100 percent of the assistance; or
``(B) not earlier than 10 years, but earlier than 15 years,
after operation of the project begins, the Secretary shall
require the recipient (or the project sponsor receiving funds
from the recipient) to repay 20 percent of the assistance for
each of the years in the 15-year period for which the project
fails to provide that housing.
``(2) Prevention of undue benefits.--Except as provided in
paragraph (3), if any property is used for a project that
receives assistance under subsection (a) and consists of
activities described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection
(a), and the sale or other disposition of the property occurs
before the expiration of the 15-year period beginning on the
date that operation of the project begins, the recipient (or
the project sponsor receiving funds from the recipient) who
received the assistance shall comply with such terms and
conditions as the Secretary may prescribe to prevent the
recipient (or a project sponsor receiving funds from the
recipient) from unduly benefitting from such sale or
disposition.
``(3) Exception.--A recipient (or a project sponsor
receiving funds from the recipient) shall not be required to
make the repayments, and comply with the terms and
conditions, required under paragraph (1) or (2) if--
``(A) the sale or disposition of the property used for the
project results in the use of the property for the direct
benefit of very low-income persons;
``(B) all of the proceeds of the sale or disposition are
used to provide transitional or permanent housing meeting the
requirements of this subtitle; or
``(C) there are no individuals and families in the
geographic area who are homeless, in which case the project
may serve individuals and families at risk of homelessness
under section 1004.
``SEC. 424. FLEXIBILITY INCENTIVES FOR HIGH-PERFORMING
COMMUNITIES.
``(a) Designation as a High-Performing Community.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall designate, on an
annual basis, which collaborative applicants represent high-
performing communities.
``(2) Consideration.--In determining whether to designate a
collaborative applicant as a high-performing community under
paragraph (1), the Secretary shall establish criteria to
ensure that the requirements described under paragraphs
(1)(B) and (2)(B) of subsection (d) are measured by comparing
homeless individuals and families under similar
circumstances, in order to encourage projects in the
geographic area to serve homeless individuals and families
with more severe barriers to housing stability.
``(3) 2-year phase in.--In each of the first 2 years after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
designate not more than 10 collaborative applicants as high-
performing communities.
``(4) Excess of qualified applicants.--In the event that
during the 2-year period described under paragraph (2) more
than 10 collaborative applicants could qualify to be
designated as high-performing communities, the Secretary
shall designate the 10 that have, in the discretion of the
Secretary, the best performance based on the criteria
described under subsection (d).
``(5) Time limit on designation.--The designation of any
collaborative applicant as a high-performing community under
this subsection shall be effective only for the year in which
such designation is made. The Secretary, on an annual basis,
may renew any such designation.
``(b) Application to Be a High-Performing Community.--
``(1) In general.--A collaborative applicant seeking
designation as a high-performing community under subsection
(a) shall submit an application to the Secretary at such
time, and in such manner as the Secretary may require.
``(2) Content of application.--In any application submitted
under paragraph (1), a collaborative applicant shall include
in such application--
``(A) a report showing how any money received under this
subtitle in the preceding year was expended; and
``(B) information that such applicant can meet the
requirements described under subsection (d).
``(3) Publication of application.--The Secretary shall--
``(A) publish any report or information submitted in an
application under this section in the geographic area
represented by the collaborative applicant; and
``(B) seek comments from the public as to whether the
collaborative applicant seeking designation as a high-
performing community meets the requirements described under
subsection (d).
``(c) Use of Funds.--
``(1) By project sponsors in a high-performing community.--
Funds awarded under section 422(a) to a project sponsor who
is located in a high-performing community may be used--
``(A) for any of the eligible activities described in
section 423; or
``(B) for any of the eligible activities described in
section 1003.
``(2) Community homelessness prevention funds.--
``(A) In general.--Funds used for activities that are
eligible under section 1003 but not under section 423 shall
be subject to--
``(i) the matching requirements of section 1008 rather than
section 430; and
``(ii) the other program requirements of title X rather
than of this subtitle.
``(B) Duty of secretary.--The Secretary shall transfer any
funds awarded under section 422(a) for activities that are
eligible under section 1003 but not under section 423 from
the account for this subtitle to the account for title X.
``(d) Definition of High-Performing Community.--For
purposes of this section, the term `high-performing
community' means a geographic area that demonstrates through
reliable data that all of the following 4 requirements are
met for that geographic area:
``(1) The mean length of episodes of homelessness for that
geographic area--
``(A) is less than 20 days; or
``(B) for individuals and families in similar circumstances
in the preceding year was at least 10 percent less than in
the year before.
``(2) Of individuals and families--
``(A) who leave homelessness, less than 5 percent of such
individuals and families become homeless again at any time
within the next 2 years; or
``(B) in similar circumstances who leave homelessness, the
percentage of such individuals and families who become
homeless again within the next 2 years has decreased by at
least \1/5\ within the preceding year.
``(3) The communities that compose the geographic area
have--
``(A) actively encouraged homeless individuals and families
to participate in homeless assistance services available in
that geographic area; and
``(B) included each homeless individual or family who
sought homeless assistance services in the data system used
by that community for determining compliance with this
subsection.
``(4) If recipients in the geographic area have used
funding awarded under section 422(a) for eligible activities
described under section 1003 in previous years based on the
authority granted under subsection (c), that such activities
were effective at reducing the number of individuals and
families who became homeless in that community.
``(e) Cooperation Among Entities.--A collaborative
applicant designated as a high-performing community under
this section shall cooperate with the Secretary in
distributing information about successful efforts within the
geographic area represented by the collaborative applicant to
reduce homelessness.'' ;
(3) in section 426 (42 U.S.C. 11386)--
(A) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) Site Control.--The Secretary shall require that each
application include reasonable assurances that the applicant
will own or have control of a site for the proposed project
not later than the expiration of the 12-month period
beginning upon notification of an award for grant assistance,
unless the application proposes providing supportive housing
assistance under section 423(a)(3) or housing that will
eventually be owned or controlled by the families and
individuals served. An applicant may obtain ownership or
control of a suitable site different from the site specified
in the application. If any recipient (or project sponsor
receiving funds from the recipient) fails to obtain ownership
or control of the site within 12 months after notification of
an award for grant assistance, the grant shall be recaptured
and reallocated under this subtitle.'';
(B) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Required Agreements.--The Secretary may not provide
assistance for a proposed project under this subtitle unless
the collaborative applicant involved agrees--
``(1) to ensure the operation of the project in accordance
with the provisions of this subtitle;
``(2) to monitor and report to the Secretary the progress
of the project;
``(3) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that
individuals and families experiencing homelessness are
involved, through employment, provision of volunteer
services, or otherwise, in constructing, rehabilitating,
maintaining, and operating facilities for the project and in
providing supportive services for the project;
``(4) to require certification from all project sponsors
that--
``(A) they will maintain the confidentiality of records
pertaining to any individual or family provided family
violence prevention or treatment services through the
project;
``(B) that the address or location of any family violence
shelter project assisted under this subtitle will not be made
public, except with written authorization of the person
responsible for the operation of such project;
``(C) they will establish policies and practices that are
consistent with, and do not restrict the exercise of rights
provided by, subtitle B of title VII, and other laws relating
to the provision of educational and related services to
individuals and families experiencing homelessness;
[[Page S6886]]
``(D) they will provide data and reports as required by the
Secretary pursuant to the Act; and
``(E) if the project includes the provision of permanent
housing to people with disabilities, the housing will be
provided for not more than--
``(i) 8 such persons in a single structure or contiguous
structures;
``(ii) 16 such persons, but only if not more than 20
percent of the units in a structure are designated for such
persons; or
``(iii) more than 16 such persons if the applicant
demonstrates that local market conditions dictate the
development of a large project and such development will
achieve the neighborhood integration objectives of the
program within the context of the affected community;
``(5) if a collaborative applicant is a unified funding
agency under section 402(f) and receives funds under subtitle
C to carry out the payment of administrative costs described
in section 423(a)(7), to establish such fiscal control and
fund accounting procedures as may be necessary to assure the
proper disbursal of, and accounting for, such funds in order
to ensure that all financial transactions carried out with
such funds are conducted, and records maintained, in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
``(6) to monitor and report to the Secretary the provision
of matching funds as required by section 430; and
``(7) to comply with such other terms and conditions as the
Secretary may establish to carry out this subtitle in an
effective and efficient manner.'';
(C) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c);
(D) in subsection (c) (as redesignated in subparagraph
(C)), in the first sentence, by striking ``recipient'' and
inserting ``recipient or project sponsor'';
(E) by striking subsection (e);
(F) by redesignating subsections (f), (g), and (h), as
subsections (d), (e), and (f), respectively;
(G) in subsection (e) (as redesignated in subparagraph
(F)), in the first sentence, by striking ``recipient'' each
place it appears and inserting ``recipient or project
sponsor'';
(H) by striking subsection (i); and
(I) by redesignating subsection (j) as subsection (g);
(4) by repealing section 429 (42 U.S.C. 11389);
(5) by redesignating sections 427 and 428 (42 U.S.C. 11387,
11388) as sections 431 and 432, respectively; and
(6) by inserting after section 426 the following:
``SEC. 427. SELECTION CRITERIA.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award funds to
recipients by a national competition between geographic areas
based on criteria established by the Secretary.
``(b) Required Criteria.--
``(1) In general.--The criteria established under
subsection (a) shall include--
``(A) the previous performance of the recipient regarding
homelessness, measured by criteria that shall be announced by
the Secretary, that shall take into account barriers faced by
individual homeless people, and that shall include--
``(i) the length of time individuals and families remain
homeless;
``(ii) the extent to which individuals and families who
leave homelessness experience additional spells of
homelessness;
``(iii) the thoroughness of grantees in the geographic area
in reaching all homeless individuals and families;
``(iv) overall reduction in the number of homeless
individuals and families;
``(v) jobs and income growth for homeless individuals and
families;
``(vi) success at reducing the number of individuals and
families who become homeless; and
``(vii) other accomplishments by the recipient related to
reducing homelessness;
``(B) the plan of the recipient, which shall describe--
``(i) how the number of individuals and families who become
homeless will be reduced in the community;
``(ii) how the length of time that individuals and families
remain homeless will be reduced; and
``(iii) the extent to which the recipient will--
``(I) address the needs of all relevant subpopulations,
including--
``(aa) individuals with serious mental illness, addiction
disorders, HIV/AIDS and other prevalent disabilities;
``(bb) families with children;
``(cc) unaccompanied youth;
``(dd) veterans; and
``(ee) other subpopulations with a risk of becoming
homeless;
``(II) incorporate all necessary strategies for reducing
homelessness, including the interventions referred to in
section 428(d);
``(III) set quantifiable performance measures;
``(IV) set timelines for completion of specific tasks;
``(V) identify specific funding sources for planned
activities;
``(VI) identify an individual or body responsible for
overseeing implementation of specific strategies;
``(VII) include a review of local policies and practices
relating to discharge planning from institutions, access to
benefits and services from mainstream government programs,
and zoning and land use, to determine whether such local
policies and practices aggravate or ameliorate homelessness
in the geographic area;
``(VIII) include interventions that will help reunify
families that have been split up as a result of homelessness;
and
``(IX) incorporate the findings and recommendations of the
most recently completed annual assessments, conducted
pursuant to section 2034 of title 38, United States Code, of
the Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers or
regional benefits offices whose service areas include the
geographic area of the recipient;
``(C) the methodology of the recipient used to determine
the priority for funding local projects under section
422(c)(1), including the extent to which the priority-setting
process--
``(i) uses periodically collected information and analysis
to determine the extent to which each project has resulted in
rapid return to permanent housing for those served by the
project, taking into account the severity of barriers faced
by the people the project serves;
``(ii) includes evaluations obtained directly from the
individuals and families served by the project;
``(iii) evaluates whether the population served by the
project matches the priority population for that project;
``(iv) is based on objective criteria that have been
publicly announced by the recipient;
``(v) is open to proposals from entities that have not
previously received funds under this subtitle; and
``(vi) avoids conflicts of interest in the decision-making
of the recipient;
``(D) the extent to which the recipient has a comprehensive
understanding of the extent and nature of homelessness in the
geographic area and efforts needed to combat the problem of
homelessness in the geographic area;
``(E) the need for the types of projects proposed in the
geographic area to be served and the extent to which the
prioritized programs of the recipient meet such unmet needs;
``(F) the extent to which the amount of assistance to be
provided under this subtitle to the recipient will be
supplemented with resources from other public and private
sources, including mainstream programs identified by the
Government Accountability Office in the 2 reports described
in section 102(a)(5)(B);
``(G) demonstrated coordination by the recipient with the
other Federal, State, local, private, and other entities
serving individuals and families experiencing homelessness
and at risk of homelessness in the planning and operation of
projects, to the extent practicable;
``(H) the degree to which homeless individuals and families
in the geographic area, including members of all relevant
subpopulations listed in subparagraph (B)(III)(I), are able
to access--
``(i) public benefits and services for which they are
eligible, besides the services funded under this subtitle,
including public schools; and
``(ii) the benefits and services provided by the Department
of Veterans Affairs;
``(I) the extent to which the opinions and views of the
full range of people in the geographic area are considered,
including--
``(i) homeless individuals and families, individuals and
families at risk of homelessness, and individuals and
families who have experienced homelessness;
``(ii) individuals associated with community-based
organizations that serve homeless individuals and families
and individuals and families at risk of homelessness;
``(iii) persons who act as advocates for the diverse
subpopulations of individuals and families experiencing or at
risk of homelessness;
``(iv) relatives of individuals and families experiencing
or at risk of homelessness;
``(v) Federal, State, and local government agency
officials, particularly those officials responsible for
administering funding under programs targeted for individuals
and families experiencing homelessness, and other programs
for which individuals and families experiencing homelessness
are eligible, including mainstream programs identified by the
Government Accountability Office in the 2 reports described
in section 102(a)(5)(B);
``(vi) local educational agency liaisons designated under
section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii), or their designees;
``(vii) members of the business community;
``(viii) members of neighborhood advocacy organizations;
and
``(ix) members of philanthropic organizations that
contribute to preventing and ending homelessness in the
geographic area of the collaborative applicant; and
``(J) such other factors as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate to carry out this subtitle in an effective and
efficient manner.
``(2) Additional criteria.--In addition to the criteria
required under paragraph (1), the criteria established under
subsection (a) shall also include the need within the
geographic area for homeless services, determined as follows
and under the following conditions:
``(A) Notice.--The Secretary shall inform each
collaborative applicant, at a time concurrent with the
release of the Notice of Funding Availability for grants
under section 422(b), of the pro rata estimated need amount
under this subtitle for the geographic area represented by
the collaborative applicant.
``(B) Amount.--
[[Page S6887]]
``(i) Basis.--The estimated need amount under subparagraph
(A) shall be based on a percentage of the total funds
available, or estimated to be available, to carry out this
subtitle for any fiscal year that is equal to the percentage
of the total amount available for section 106 of the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5306) for
the prior fiscal year that--
``(I) was allocated to all metropolitan cities and urban
counties within the geographic area represented by the
collaborative applicant; or
``(II) would have been distributed to all counties within
such geographic area that are not urban counties, if the 30
percent portion of the allocation to the State involved (as
described in subsection (d)(1) of that section 106) for that
year had been distributed among the counties that are not
urban counties in the State in accordance with the formula
specified in that subsection (with references in that
subsection to nonentitlement areas considered to be
references to those counties).
``(ii) Rule.--In computing the estimated need amount under
subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall adjust the estimated
need amount determined pursuant to clause (i) to ensure
that--
``(I) 75 percent of the total funds available, or estimated
to be available, to carry out this subtitle for any fiscal
year are allocated to the metropolitan cities and urban
counties that received a direct allocation of funds under
section 413 for the prior fiscal year; and
``(II) 25 percent of the total funds available, or
estimated to be available, to carry out this subtitle for any
fiscal year are allocated--
``(aa) to the metropolitan cities and urban counties that
did not receive a direct allocation of funds under section
413 for the prior fiscal year; and
``(bb) to counties that are not urban counties.
``(iii) Combinations or consortia.--For a collaborative
applicant that represents a combination or consortium of
cities or counties, the estimated need amount shall be the
sum of the estimated need amounts for the cities or counties
represented by the collaborative applicant.
``(iv) Authority of secretary.--The Secretary may increase
the estimated need amount for a geographic area if necessary
to provide 1 year of renewal funding for all expiring
contracts entered into under this subtitle for the geographic
area.
``SEC. 428. ALLOCATION AMOUNTS AND INCENTIVES FOR SPECIFIC
ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.
``(a) Minimum Allocation for Permanent Housing for Homeless
Individuals and Families With Disabilities.--
``(1) In general.--From the amounts made available to carry
out this subtitle for a fiscal year, a portion equal to not
less than 30 percent of the sums made available to carry out
subtitle B and this subtitle for that fiscal year shall be
used for permanent housing for homeless individuals with
disabilities and homeless families that include such an
individual who is an adult.
``(2) Calculation.--In calculating the portion of the
amount described in paragraph (1) that is used for activities
that are described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall not
count funds made available to renew contracts for existing
projects under section 429.
``(3) Adjustment.--The 30 percent figure in paragraph (1)
shall be reduced proportionately based on need under section
427(b)(2) in geographic areas for which subsection (e)
applies in regard to subsection (d)(2)(A).
``(4) Suspension.--The requirement established in paragraph
(1) shall be suspended for any year in which available
funding for grants under this subtitle would not be
sufficient to renew for 1 year existing grants that would
otherwise be funded under this subtitle.
``(5) Termination.--The requirement established in
paragraph (1) shall terminate upon a finding by the Secretary
that since the beginning of 2001 at least 150,000 new units
of permanent housing for homeless individuals and families
with disabilities have been funded under this subtitle.
``(b) Minimum Allocation for Permanent Housing for Homeless
Families With Children.--From the amounts made available to
carry out this subtitle for a fiscal year, a portion equal to
not less than 10 percent of the sums made available to carry
out subtitle B and this subtitle for that fiscal year shall
be used to provide or secure permanent housing for homeless
families with children.
``(c) Funding for Acquisition, Construction, and
Rehabilitation of Permanent or Transitional Housing.--Nothing
in this subtitle shall be construed to establish a limit on
the amount of funding that an applicant may request under
this subtitle for acquisition, construction, or
rehabilitation activities for the development of permanent
housing or transitional housing.
``(d) Incentives for Proven Strategies.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall provide bonuses or
other incentives to geographic areas for using funding under
this subtitle for activities that have been proven to be
effective at reducing homelessness generally or reducing
homelessness for a specific subpopulation.
``(2) Rule of construction.--For purposes of this
subsection, activities that have been proven to be effective
at reducing homelessness generally or reducing homelessness
for a specific subpopulation includes--
``(A) permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless
individuals and families;
``(B) for homeless families, rapid rehousing services,
short-term flexible subsidies to overcome barriers to
rehousing, support services concentrating on improving
incomes to pay rent, coupled with performance measures
emphasizing rapid and permanent rehousing and with leveraging
funding from mainstream family service systems such as
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Child Welfare
services; and
``(C) any other activity determined by the Secretary, based
on research and after notice and comment to the public, to
have been proven effective at reducing homelessness generally
or reducing homelessness for a specific subpopulation.
``(e) Incentives for Successful Implementation of Proven
Strategies.--
``(1) In general.--If any geographic area demonstrates that
it has fully implemented any of the activities described in
subsection (d) for all homeless individuals and families or
for all members of subpopulations for whom such activities
are targeted, that geographic area shall receive the bonus or
incentive provided under subsection (d), but may use such
bonus or incentive for any eligible activity under either
section 423 or section 1003 for homeless people generally or
for the relevant subpopulation.
``(2) Use of funds.--Bonus or incentive funds awarded under
this subsection that are used for activities that are
eligible under section 1003 but not under section 423 shall
be subject to--
``(A) the matching requirements of section 1008 rather than
section 430; and
``(B) the other program requirements of title X rather than
of this subtitle.
``(3) Duty of secretary.--The Secretary shall transfer any
bonus or incentive funds awarded under this subsection for
activities that are eligible under section 1003 but not under
section 423 from the account for this subtitle to the account
for title X.
``SEC. 429. RENEWAL FUNDING AND TERMS OF ASSISTANCE FOR
PERMANENT HOUSING.
``(a) In General.--Of the total amount available in the
account or accounts designated for appropriations for use in
connection with section 8 of the United States Housing Act of
1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f), the Secretary shall use such sums as
may be necessary for the purpose of renewing expiring
contracts for leasing, rental assistance, or operating costs
for permanent housing.
``(b) Renewals.--The sums made available under subsection
(a) shall be available for the renewal of contracts for a 1-
year term for rental assistance and housing operation costs
associated with permanent housing projects funded under this
subtitle, or under subtitle C or F (as in effect on the day
before the date of enactment of the Community Partnership to
End Homelessness Act of 2007). The Secretary shall determine
whether to renew a contract for such a permanent housing
project on the basis of certification by the collaborative
applicant for the geographic area that--
``(1) there is a demonstrated need for the project; and
``(2) the project complies with program requirements and
appropriate standards of housing quality and habitability, as
determined by the Secretary.
``(c) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed as prohibiting the Secretary from renewing
contracts under this subtitle in accordance with criteria set
forth in a provision of this subtitle other than this
section.
``SEC. 430. MATCHING FUNDING.
``(a) In General.--A collaborative applicant in a
geographic area in which funds are awarded under this
subtitle shall specify contributions that shall be made
available in the geographic area in an amount equal to not
less than 25 percent of the funds provided to recipients in
the geographic area.
``(b) Limitations on In-Kind Match.--The cash value of
services provided to the residents or clients of a project
sponsor by an entity other than the project sponsor may count
toward the contributions in subsection (a) only when
documented by a memorandum of understanding between the
project sponsor and the other entity that such services will
be provided.
``(c) Countable Activities.--- The contributions required
under subsection (a) may consist of--
``(1) funding for any eligible activity described under
section 423; and
``(2) subject to subsection (b), in-kind provision of
services of any eligible activity described under section
423.''.
SEC. 7. RURAL HOUSING STABILITY ASSISTANCE.
Subtitle D of title IV of the McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11408 et seq.), as redesignated by
section 9, is amended--
(1) by striking the subtitle heading and inserting the
following:
``Subtitle D--Rural Housing Stability Assistance Program''; and
(2) in section 491--
(A) by striking the section heading and inserting ``rural
housing stability grant program.'';
(B) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``rural homelessness grant program'' and
inserting ``rural housing stability grant program'';
(ii) by inserting ``in lieu of grants under subtitle C and
title X'' after ``eligible organizations''; and
(iii) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), and
inserting the following:
[[Page S6888]]
``(1) rehousing or improving the housing situations of
individuals and families who are homeless or in the worst
housing situations in the geographic area;
``(2) stabilizing the housing of individuals and families
who are in imminent danger of losing housing; and
``(3) improving the ability of the lowest-income residents
of the community to afford stable housing.'';
(C) in subsection (b)(1)--
(i) by redesignating subparagraphs (E), (F), and (G) as
subparagraphs (I), (J), and (K), respectively; and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (D) and inserting the
following:
``(D) construction of new housing units to provide
transitional or permanent housing to homeless individuals and
families;
``(E) acquisition or rehabilitation of a structure to
provide supportive services or to provide transitional or
permanent housing, other than emergency shelter, to homeless
individuals and families;
``(F) leasing of property, or portions of property, not
owned by the recipient or project sponsor involved, for use
in providing transitional or permanent housing to homeless
individuals and families, or providing supportive services to
homeless individuals and families;
``(G) provision of rental assistance to provide
transitional or permanent housing to homeless individuals and
families, such rental assistance may include tenant-based or
project-based rental assistance;
``(H) payment of operating costs for housing units assisted
under this title;'';
(D) in subsection (b)(2), by striking ``appropriated'' and
inserting ``transferred'';
(E) in subsection (c)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``appropriated'' and
inserting ``transferred''; and
(ii) in paragraph (3), by striking ``appropriated'' and
inserting ``transferred'';
(F) in subsection (d)--
(i) in paragraph (5), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(ii) in paragraph (6)--
(I) by striking ``an agreement'' and all that follows
through ``families'' and inserting the following: ``a
description of how individuals and families who are homeless
or who have the lowest incomes in the community will be
involved by the organization''; and
(II) by striking the period at the end, and inserting a
semicolon; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(7) a description of consultations that took place within
the community to ascertain the most important uses for
funding under this section, including the involvement of
potential beneficiaries of the project; and
``(8) a description of the extent and nature of
homelessness and of the worst housing situations in the
community.'';
(G) by striking subsections (f) and (g) and inserting the
following:
``(f) Matching Funding.--
``(1) In general.--An organization eligible to receive a
grant under subsection (a) shall specify matching
contributions that shall be made available in an amount equal
to not less than 25 percent of the funds provided for the
project or activity.
``(2) Limitations on in-kind match.--The cash value of
services provided to the beneficiaries or clients of an
eligible organization by an entity other than the
organization may count toward the contributions in paragraph
(1) only when documented by a memorandum of understanding
between the organization and the other entity that such
services will be provided.
``(3) Countable activities.--The contributions required
under paragraph (1) may consist of--
``(A) funding for any eligible activity described under
subsection (b); and
``(B) subject to paragraph (2), in-kind provision of
services of any eligible activity described under subsection
(b).
``(g) Selection Criteria.--The Secretary shall establish
criteria for selecting recipients of grants under subsection
(a), including--
``(1) the participation of potential beneficiaries of the
project in assessing the need for, and importance of, the
project in the community;
``(2) the degree to which the project addresses the most
harmful housing situations present in the community;
``(3) the degree of collaboration with others in the
community to meet the goals described in subsection (a);
``(4) the performance of the organization in improving
housing situations, taking account of the severity of
barriers of individuals and families served by the
organization;
``(5) for organizations that have previously received
funding under this section, the extent of improvement in
homelessness and the worst housing situations in the
community since such funding began;
``(6) the need for such funds, as determined by the formula
established under section 427(b)(2); and
``(7) any other relevant criteria as determined by the
Secretary.'';
(H) in subsection (h)--
(i) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``providing housing
and other assistance to homeless persons'' and inserting
``meeting the goals described in subsection (a)'';
(ii) in paragraph (1)(B), by inserting ``in the worst
housing situations'' after ``homelessness''; and
(iii) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``in the worst housing
situations'' after ``homelessness'';
(I) in subsection (k)(1), by striking ``rural homelessness
grant program'' and inserting ``rural housing stability grant
program'';
(J) in subsection (l)--
(i) by striking the subsection heading and inserting
``Program Funding.--''; and
(ii) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall determine the total
amount of funding attributable under both section 427(b)(2)
and section 1003(h) to meet the needs of any geographic area
in the Nation that applies for funding under this section.
The Secretary shall transfer any amounts determined under
this subsection from the Community Homeless Assistance
Program and the grant program under section 1002 and
consolidate such transferred amounts for grants under this
section.''; and
(K) by adding at the end the following:
``(m) Division of Funds.--
``(1) Agreement among geographic areas.--If the Secretary
receives an application or applications to provide services
in a geographic area under this subtitle, and also under
subtitle C and title X, the Secretary shall consult with all
applicants from the geographic area to determine whether all
agree to proceed under either this subtitle or under subtitle
C and title X.
``(2) Default if no agreement.--If no agreement is reached
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall proceed under this
subtitle, or under subtitle C and title X, depending on which
results in the largest total grant funding to the geographic
area.''.
SEC. 8. FUNDS TO PREVENT HOMELESSNESS AND STABILIZE HOUSING
FOR PRECARIOUSLY HOUSED INDIVIDUALS AND
FAMILIES.
The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301
et seq.) is amended by inserting after title IX the
following:
``TITLE X--PREVENTING HOMELESSNESS AND STABILIZING HOUSING FOR
PRECARIOUSLY HOUSED INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES
``SEC. 1001. PURPOSES.
``The purposes of this title are--
``(1) to assist local communities to stabilize the housing
of individuals and families who are most at risk of
homelessness; and
``(2) to improve the ability of publicly funded
institutions to avoid homelessness among individuals and
families leaving the institutions.
``SEC. 1002. COMMUNITY HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION AND HOUSING
STABILITY.
``(a) Projects.--The Secretary shall award grants to
recipients, on a competitive basis using the selection
criteria described in section 1006, to carry out eligible
activities under this title, for projects that meet the
program requirements established under section 1005.
``(b) Notification of Funding Availability.--The Secretary
shall release a Notification of Funding Availability for
grants awarded under this title for a fiscal year not later
than 3 months after the date of enactment of the appropriate
Act making appropriations for the Department of Housing and
Urban Development for the fiscal year.
``(c) Collaborative Applicant.--
``(1) In general.--A collaborative applicant, as such term
is defined in section 401, shall for purposes of this title
have the same responsibilities as set forth under section
402.
``(2) Dual role encouraged.--The Secretary shall encourage
the same entity which serves as a collaborative applicant for
purposes of subtitle C of title IV to serve as a
collaborative applicant for purposes of this title.
``(d) Applications.--
``(1) Submission to the secretary.--A collaborative
applicant shall submit an application to the Secretary at
such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require,
and containing such information as the Secretary determines
necessary to determine if the applicant is in compliance
with--
``(A) program requirements established under section 1005;
``(B) the selection criteria described in section 1006; and
``(C) the priorities for funding projects in the geographic
area under this title.
``(2) Coordination with community homeless assistance
program.--The Secretary shall, to the maximum extent
feasible, coordinate the application process under this
section with the application processes for programs under
subtitles B and C of title IV.
``(3) Announcement of awards.--The Secretary shall
announce, within 4 months after the last date for the
submission of applications described in this subsection for a
fiscal year, the grants conditionally awarded under
subsection (a) for that fiscal year.
``(e) Renewal Funding for Unsuccessful Applicants.--The
Secretary may renew funding for a specific project previously
funded under this title that the Secretary determines is
effective at preventing homelessness, and was included as
part of a total application that met the criteria of
subsection (d)(1), even if the application was not selected
to receive grant assistance. The Secretary may renew the
funding for a period of not more than 1 year, and under such
conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate.
``(f) More Than 1 Application for a Geographic Area.--If
more than 1 collaborative applicant applies for funds for a
geographic area, the Secretary shall award funds to the
collaborative applicant with the highest score based on the
selection criteria set forth in section 1006.
[[Page S6889]]
``SEC. 1003. ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.
``The Secretary may award grants to qualified recipients
under section 1002 to carry out homeless prevention projects
that consist of 1 or more of the following eligible
activities:
``(1) Leasing of property, or portions of property, not
owned by the recipient involved, for use in providing short-
term or medium-term housing to people at risk of
homelessness, or providing supportive services to people at
risk of homelessness.
``(2) Provision of rental assistance to provide short-term
or medium-term housing to people at risk of homelessness. The
rental assistance may include tenant-based or project-based
rental assistance.
``(3) Payment of operating costs for housing units assisted
under this title.
``(4) Supportive services for people at risk of
homelessness.
``(5) Housing relocation or stabilization services,
including housing search, mediation or outreach to property
owners, legal services, credit repair, providing security or
utility deposits, rental assistance for a final month at a
location, assistance with moving costs, or other activities
that are effective at stabilizing individuals and families in
their current housing or quickly moving them to other
housing.
``(6) In the case of a collaborative applicant that is a
legal entity payment of administrative costs related to
meeting the requirements of section 1002(c), for which the
collaborative applicant may use not more than 3 percent of
the total funds made available in the geographic area under
this subtitle.
``(7) In the case of a collaborative applicant that is a
unified funding agency, as such term is defined under section
402, payment of administrative costs related to meeting the
requirements of serving as such an agency, for which the
collaborative applicant may use not more than 3 percent of
the total funds made available in the geographic area under
this title.
``SEC. 1004. ELIGIBLE CLIENTS FOR FUNDED PROJECTS.
``(a) Rule of Construction.--For purposes of this title,
`individuals and families at risk of homelessness' means
individuals and families who meet all of the following
criteria:
``(1) Have incomes below 20 percent of the median for the
geographic area, adjusted for household size.
``(2) Have moved frequently due to economic reasons, are
living in the home of another due to economic hardship, have
been notified that their right to occupy their current
housing or living situation will be terminated, live in
severely overcrowded housing, or otherwise live in housing
that has characteristics associated with instability and
increased risk of homelessness as determined by the
Secretary.
``(3) Have insufficient resources immediately available to
attain housing stability.
``(b) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary my waive any of the
criteria described in subsection (a) in a geographic area
upon a finding that all individuals and families who meet
such criteria in the geographic area will be served under
this title, and that individuals and families in the
geographic area who do not meet the criteria described in
subsection (a) remain at risk of homelessness.
``SEC. 1005. PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.
``The program requirements set forth under section 426
shall apply to projects funded under this title.
``SEC. 1006. SELECTION CRITERIA.
``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall award funds to
recipients by a national competition based on criteria
established by the Secretary.
``(b) Required Criteria.--The criteria established under
subsection (a) shall include--
``(1) the previous performance of the recipient regarding
stabilizing housing and preventing homelessness, measured by
criteria that shall be announced by the Secretary, that shall
take into account barriers faced by individuals and families
at risk of homelessness;
``(2) the plan of the recipient, which shall describe--
``(A) how the number of individuals and families who become
homeless will be reduced in the community; and
``(B) how the length of time that individuals and families
remain homeless will be reduced;
``(3) all of the criteria established under section
427(b)(1)(B)(iii);
``(4) the methodology used by the recipient to determine
the priority for funding local projects under section
1002(d)(1), including use of the same methodology used in
section 427(b)(1)(C);
``(5) the degree to which services are to be provided by
the recipient to those individuals and families most at risk
of homelessness; and
``(6) all of the criteria established under--
``(A) subparagraphs (D) through (J) of subsection (b)(1) of
section 427; and
``(B) subsection (b)(2) of section 427.
``SEC. 1007. ELIGIBLE GRANT RECIPIENTS.
``The Secretary may make grants under this title to States,
local governments, or nonprofit corporations.
``SEC. 1008. MATCHING REQUIREMENT.
``(a) In General.--A collaborative applicant in a
geographic area in which funds are awarded under this title
shall specify contributions that shall be made available in
that geographic area, in an amount equal to not less than 25
percent of the Federal funds provided under the grant, except
that when services are provided to individuals and families
who are or were within the past 2 years residents of
institutions or systems of care funded, in whole or in part,
by State or local government, including prison, jail, child
welfare, and hospitals (including mental hospitals), for
periods exceeding 2 years, then the collaborative applicant
shall specify contributions that shall be made available in
an amount equal to not less than 60 percent of the Federal
funds provided under the grant.
``(b) Limitations on In-Kind Match.--The cash value of
services provided to the residents or clients of a recipient
of a grant under this title by an entity other than the
recipient may count toward the contributions in subsection
(a) only when documented by a memorandum of understanding
between the recipient and the other entity that such services
will be provided.
``(c) Countable Activities.--- The contributions required
under subsection (a) may consist of--
``(1) funding for any eligible activity described under
section 423 or section 1003; and
``(2) subject to subsection (b), in-kind provision of
services of any eligible activity described under section 423
or section 1003.
``SEC. 1009. REGULATIONS.
``The Secretary shall promulgate regulations to carry out
this title.
``SEC. 1010. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the
Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007, the
Secretary shall report to Congress on the accomplishments of
the program in this title.
``SEC. 1011. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
``There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title $250,000,000 for fiscal year 2008, and such sums as may
be necessary for fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.''.
SEC. 9. REPEALS AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Repeals.--Subtitles D, E, and F of title IV of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11391 et
seq., 11401 et seq., and 11403 et seq.) are repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Subtitle G of title IV of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11408 et
seq.) is amended by redesignating subtitle G as subtitle D.
SEC. 10. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act shall take effect 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act.
______
By Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 1519. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
provide for a transition to a new voluntary quality reporting program
for physicians and other health professionals; to the Committee on
Finance.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Voluntary
Medicare Quality Reporting Act of 2007. I thank my good friend, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, for joining me in this
effort. This is an important bill for tens of millions of Medicare
beneficiaries, for the physicians, nurse practitioners and allied
health professionals who treat them, and for the future of the Medicare
program.
At the end of this year, providers will again face the prospect of an
across-the-board cut in their Medicare reimbursements. The scheduled
cut for 2008 is the largest ever, 9.9 percent. These cuts are the
result of a flawed reimbursement system created in 1997 that uses the
Sustainable Growth Rate formula, or SGR, to determine an acceptable
increase in the growth of provider expenditures.
Medicare reimbursements increase when the previous year's payments do
not exceed a target level that is based on the growth of our economy.
However, when the previous year's payments exceed that target level,
reimbursements are cut. According to MedPAC, the SGR formula would
reduce Medicare provider reimbursements by 40 percent over the next
eight years if Congress does not act. MedPAC is also concerned that
over the next several years these reductions ``would threaten
beneficiary access to physician services over time, particularly those
provided by primary care physicians.'' MedPAC recognizes the importance
of provider participation in the Medicare program, particularly in our
rural and underserved urban areas where the decision to not accept new
Medicare patients can make all the difference in seniors' access to
medical care.
Congress recognizes this as well, and so we have intervened to
prevent scheduled cuts resulting from SGR from taking effect. For all
except the newest members of this body, this process of enacting a
``physician fix'' is a familiar scenario. For the past four years,
Congress has acted to prevent these cuts to providers, usually through
a last-minute provision added to a must-pass bill.
[[Page S6890]]
In the 109th Congress, I introduced bipartisan legislation
implementing MedPAC's recommendations and calling for Congress to
repeal the SGR formula and update provider reimbursements by the cost
of care. Replacing SGR will require a thoughtful and protracted process
involving the input of lawmakers and the provider community, and it is
costly, but it is something that we must do.
The most recent ``fix'' was made to the 2006 Tax Relief and Health
Care Act, Public Law 109-432. That law froze payment rates, staving off
an across-the-board cut of 5.1 percent. Congress also added a quality
reporting system called the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative
program PQRI, which made providers eligible for a bonus payment of 1.5
percent of their total allowed Medicare charges if they report to HHS
on certain quality measures starting in July 2007.
This new system is also known as ``pay-for-reporting,'' and it is
based on the concept that physicians should receive an increase in
Medicare reimbursement only once they have participated in extensive
quality reporting. Across my State, I have heard serious concerns that
this will lead to a mandatory reporting system in the near future, and
that we will soon see an untested ``pay-for-performance'' system in
place.
Now, I think all my colleagues would agree that our seniors deserve
the highest quality care. But in our quest for improved quality, we
must answer two questions here: should we proceed with an untested
system of reporting requirements just for the sake of reporting, and
will we actually achieve better care for our seniors via the PQRI.
I am very concerned about implementing reporting requirements that
have not been tested. I believe that we must have the right process in
place for defining a quality reporting system for services provided to
Medicare beneficiaries by health care professionals. We should not be
establishing reporting requirements for health professionals just for
the sake of reporting, and we should not be moving forward with this
system until we have adequate time to evaluate each stage of its
development.
Current law does not provide sufficient time to assess the
appropriateness and effectiveness of this new system. Nor do they take
into account the fact that most physicians and other health
professionals have no experience in quality reporting and do not have
in place the necessary health information technology and administrative
infrastructures to participate in a reporting system.
The bill I am introducing today will assure that health professionals
will be at the center of the process for defining areas where quality
measures are needed, as well as for defining the relevant measures
themselves. Why is this important? Health professionals must be
actively engaged in developing and implementing an effective reporting
system because they are on the front lines of health care delivery, and
they best understand the nexus between care delivery and quality
measurement. The development process for quality measures must be
transparent and consistent for all health professionals because they
are the ones who will determine its successful implementation.
Additionally, quality measures should be tested across a variety of
specialties and practice settings before they are included in a
reporting system because measures must be clinically valid to be
relevant for defining quality, and because physicians and health
professionals practice in a variety of settings, for example: small vs.
large practices, urban vs. suburban vs. rural locations, office-based
vs. hospital-base practices.
Most importantly, we should not be using hastily devised quality
measures to justify reimbursement cuts. There are some who advocate
pay-for-performance as a way to slow the growth of physician spending.
They think we can accomplish lower physician expenditures by setting
arbitrary standards and then cutting payments to physicians who fail to
meet them. But across America, there are practices that would face
tremendous obstacles in meeting such standards: they lack of the
information technology necessary to document and report standards in a
timely manner; they see patients with economic and language barriers
that will result in higher noncompliance rates; they treat a patient
population for whom ethnic and racial differences require different
clinical interventions than for other patients. Ignoring these
considerations will not only fail to dramatically improve quality, it
will significantly penalize providers who treat traditionally
underserved populations.
This bill provides an opportunity to thoughtfully and carefully
develop effective quality measures that reflect differences in practice
patterns, to share our findings, and to determine and encourage the
most cost-effective methods of providing the highest quality care.
Rather than moving forward precipitously in 2008 with a permanent
Medicare quality reporting system after a transitional 6-month period
this year, as current law requires, our bill, the Voluntary Medicare
Quality Reporting Act of 2007, instead would establish a more realistic
timeline for quality measure reporting by health professionals. It does
so by:
Requiring the Secretary first to evaluate the 6-month transitional
reporting system and reporting findings to the Congress by June 1,
2008;
Requiring the Secretary to undertake demonstrations for defining
appropriate mechanisms whereby health professionals may provide data on
quality measures to the Secretary through an appropriate medical
registry;
Allowing physicians and other eligible professionals to continue
reporting to the Secretary quality measures developed for 2007, in
order for the Secretary to refine systems for reporting quality
measures;
After completion of the evaluation, phasing in a permanent Voluntary
Medicare Quality Reporting Program, with implementation beginning
January 1, 2010, based on a consistent set of rules that define an
orderly and transparent process of quality measure development;
Requiring that the Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement
of the American Medical Association be the beginning point for the
designation of clinical areas where quality measures are needed;
Having the Consortium, in collaboration with physician specialty
organizations and other eligible professional organizations, develop
and propose quality measures to a consensus organization such as the
National Quality Forum for endorsement; and
Prohibiting the Secretary from using any measures that have not been
recommended by the Consortium and endorsed by the consensus
organization.
I am confident that with all of these measures we will achieve a
successful and effective quality reporting system that will truly make
a difference in the quality of care that our Medicare beneficiaries
receive. At the end of this year, as Congress moves forward to address
the physician reimbursement issue, I urge my colleagues to support this
rational approach to promoting quality and guaranteeing access to care.
______
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. Specter):
S. 1521. A bill to provide information, resources, recommendations,
and funding to help State and local law enforcement enact crime
prevention and intervention strategies supported by rigorous evidence;
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. FEINGOLD: Mr. President, today I will introduce the PRECAUTION
Act the Prevention Resources for Eliminating Criminal Activity Using
Tailored Interventions in Our Neighborhoods Act. It is a long name, but
it stands for an important principle that it is better to invest in
precautionary measures now than it is to pay the costs of crime both in
dollars and lives later on. I am very pleased that the Senator from
Pennsyivania, Mr. Specter, will join me as a cosponsor of this
legislation.
As the Memorial Day weekend approaches, there is a particular urgency
for this bill. Last year, Milwaukee suffered a devastating surge of
violence over that holiday weekend. Just to take one example, a gunmand
opened fire on a crowd of picnickers that included, according to news
reports, almost 50 children. By the end of the weekend, nearly 30
people were wounded in shootings around the city, many
[[Page S6891]]
of them fatal. Instead of spending their Memorial Day weekend
remembering those who gave their lives in defense of this country,
Milwaukee residents found themselves mourning the victims of a war-zone
rising up in their own neighborhoods.
Violence has continued to dominate the news in Milwaukee ever since.
Brandon Sprewer, a Special Olympian, was waiting at a bus stop when he
was shot and killed for his wallet. Wisconsin Department of Justice
officer Jay Balchunas was shot and killed for no apparent reason, the
victim of a random robbery that turned violent. Shaina Mersman was shot
and killed at noon in the middle of a busy shopping area. She was 8
months pregnant, and she died in the middle of the street. And just
this very month, 4-year-old Jasmine Owens was shot and killed by a
drive-by shooter. She had been skipping rope in her front yard. These
are but a few of the senseless deaths in a list of names that is far
too long.
According to a report released by the Police Executive Research
Forum, Milwaukee's homicide rates have increased by 17 percent, robbery
rates by 39 percent, and aggravated assault by 85 percent in the past 2
years. While Milwaukee has been one of those cities hardest hit, cities
across America are struggling with rising crime rates. In fact, the
2005 FBI Uniform Crime Report showed a startling increase in violent
crime, reporting the largest single year percent increase in violent
crime in 14 years. The FBI has also reported that crime increased
another 3.7 percent in the first half of 2006 when compared with the
same time frame in 2005.
These statistics are shocking, and they show that this is not a
localized problem. Yet David Kennedy, director of the Center for Crime
Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
reported in an August 2006 Washington Post article that, ``State and
local officials feel abandoned by the Federal Government. The Federal
Government must return to its role as a real partner in conquering
crime by providing funding and crafting effective approaches to key
problems.'' Something must be done at the Federal level to stem the
tide of violence threatening our Nation. Put very simply, we, as
representatives of our constituents, have an obligation to act.
At the same time, we have an obligation to act responsibly. The
Federal government must work in concert with state and local law
enforcement, with the non profit criminal justice community, and with
other branches of State and Federal government. While we have an
obligation to provide leadership and support, we do not have the right
to unilaterally take control from the state and local officials on the
ground. We must also act wisely, investing our resources in crime-
fighting measures that we are confident will work and whose
effectiveness has been demonstrated. Sometimes, small and careful
advances are the ones that yield the most benefit.
The PRECAUTION Act is based on the premise that the cornerstones of
Federal participation in crime fighting are threefold. First, the
Federal Government should develop and disseminate knowledge to State
and local officials regarding the newest and most effective law
enforcement techniques and strategies. Second, the Federal Government
should provide financial support for innovations that our State and
local partners cannot afford to fund on their own. With that funding,
we also should provide the guidance, training, and technical assistance
to implement those innovations. Third, the Federal Government needs to
create and maintain effective partnerships among agencies at all levels
of government, partnerships that are crafted to address specific law
enforcement challenges. And in its implementation, the PRECAUTION Act
fulfills all three of these principles.
The PRECAUTION Act creates a national commission to wade through the
sea of information on crime prevention and intervention strategies
currently available and identify those programs that are most ready for
replication around the country. Over taxed law enforcement officials
need a simple, accessible resource to turn to that recommends a few,
top-tier crime prevention and intervention programs. They need a
resource that will single out those existing programs that are truly
``evidence-based,'' programs that are proven by scientifically reliable
evidence to be effective. And the commission created by the PRECAUTION
Act will provide just such a report, one written in plain language and
focused on pragmatic implementation issues, approximately a year and a
half after the bill is enacted.
In the course of holding hearings and writing this first report, the
commission will also identify some types of prevention and intervention
strategies that are promising but need further research and development
before they are ready for further implementation.
The National Institute of Justice then will administer a grant
program that will fund pilot projects in these identified areas. The
commission will follow closely the progress of these pilot projects,
and at the end of the three years of the grant program, the commission
will publish a second report, providing a detailed discussion of each
pilot project and its effectiveness. This second report will include
detailed implementation information will discuss frankly both the
successes and failures that arose over the course of the 3 years of the
grant program.
The PRECAUTION Act answers a call put out by police chiefs and mayors
from more than 50 cities around the country during a national
conference hosted by the Police Executive Research Forum. According to
a report on the event from the Forum, these law enforcement leaders
agreed that while there is a desperate need to focus on violent crime
in the law enforcement community, ``other municipal agencies and social
services organizations, including schools, mental health, public
health, courts, corrections, and conflict management groups need to be
brought together to partner toward the common goal of reducing violent
crime.'' In the hearings held by the commission, these voices will all
be heard. In the reports filed by the commission, these perspectives
will be acknowledged. And in the pilot projects administered by the
National Institute of Justice, these partnerships will be developed and
fostered.
The PRECAUTION Act, though modest in scope, is an important
supplement to the essential financial support the Federal Government
provides to our state and local law enforcement partners through
programs such as the Byrne Justice Assistance grants and the COPS
grants. When State and local law enforcement receive Federal support
for policing, they have difficult decisions to make on how to spend
those Federal dollars. We all know that prevention and intervention are
integral components of any comprehensive law enforcement plan. The
PRECAUTION Act not only highlights the importance of these components,
but will also help to single out some of the best, most effective forms
of prevention and intervention programs available. At the same time, it
will help to develop additional, cutting-edge strategies that are
supported by solid scientific evidence of their effectiveness. I am
pleased that the bill has been endorsed by the National Sheriffs'
Association, the Council for Excellence in Government, the American
Society of Criminology, and the Consortium of Social Science
Associations.
It is my sincere hope that Milwaukee is able to enjoy a peaceful
Memorial Day weekend this year, but I will not rest on hopes alone. As
Ted Kamatchus, President of the National Sheriffs' Association,
testified in a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs, this week, ``we need a coordinated
national attack on crime, recognizing that there is no single `silver
bullet' solution. Political rhetoric must not prevail over action.'' I
urge my colleagues to listen to this advice and to join Senator Specter
and me in working to get this important piece of legislation passed.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1521
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 ``Prevention
Resources for Eliminating Criminal Activity Using Tailored
Interventions in Our Neighborhoods Act of 2007'' or the
``PRECAUTION Act''.
[[Page S6892]]
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Purposes.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. National Commission on Public Safety Through Crime Prevention.
Sec. 5. Innovative crime prevention and intervention strategy grants.
Sec. 6. Elimination of the Red Planet Capital Venture Capital Program.
SEC. 2. PURPOSES.
The purposes of this Act are to--
(1) establish a commitment on the part of the Federal
Government to provide leadership on successful crime
prevention and intervention strategies;
(2) further the integration of crime prevention and
intervention strategies into traditional law enforcement
practices of State and local law enforcement offices around
the country;
(3) develop a plain-language, implementation-focused
assessment of those current crime and delinquency prevention
and intervention strategies that are supported by rigorous
evidence;
(4) provide additional resources to the National Institute
of Justice to administer research and development grants for
promising crime prevention and intervention strategies;
(5) develop recommendations for Federal priorities for
crime and delinquency prevention and intervention research,
development, and funding that may augment important Federal
grant programs, including the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice
Assistance Grant Program under subpart 1 of part E of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3750 et seq.), grant programs administered by the
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services of the
Department of Justice, grant programs administered by the
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools of the Department of
Education, and other similar programs; and
(6) reduce the costs that rising violent crime imposes on
interstate commerce.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the National
Commission on Public Safety Through Crime Prevention
established under section 4(a).
(2) Rigorous evidence.--The term ``rigorous evidence''
means evidence generated by scientifically valid forms of
outcome evaluation, particularly randomized trials (where
practicable).
(3) Subcategory.--The term ``subcategory'' means 1 of the
following categories:
(A) Family and community settings (including public health-
based strategies).
(B) Law enforcement settings (including probation-based
strategies).
(C) School settings (including antigang and general
antiviolence strategies).
(4) Top-tier.--The term ``top-tier'' means any strategy
supported by rigorous evidence of the sizable, sustained
benefits to participants in the strategy or to society.
SEC. 4. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON PUBLIC SAFETY THROUGH CRIME
PREVENTION.
(a) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be
known as the National Commission on Public Safety Through
Crime Prevention.
(b) Members.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall be composed of 9
members, of whom--
(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President, 1 of whom shall
be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs or a representative of such Assistant Attorney
General;
(B) 2 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, unless the Speaker is of the same party as
the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Representatives and 1 shall be
appointed by the minority leader of the House of
Representatives;
(C) 1 shall be appointed by the minority leader of the
House of Representatives (in addition to any appointment made
under subparagraph (B));
(D) 2 shall be appointed by the majority leader of the
Senate, unless the majority leader is of the same party as
the President, in which case 1 shall be appointed by the
majority leader of the Senate and 1 shall be appointed by the
minority leader of the Senate; and
(E) 1 member appointed by the minority leader of the Senate
(in addition to any appointment made under subparagraph (D)).
(2) Persons eligible.--
(A) In general.--Each member of the Commission shall be an
individual who has knowledge or expertise in matters to be
studied by the Commission.
(B) Required representatives.--At least--
(i) 2 members of the Commission shall be respected social
scientists with experience implementing or interpreting
rigorous, outcome-based trials; and
(ii) 2 members of the Commission shall be law enforcement
practitioners.
(3) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the
House of Representatives, and the majority leader and
minority leader of the Senate shall consult prior to the
appointment of the members of the Commission to achieve, to
the maximum extent possible, fair and equitable
representation of various points of view with respect to the
matters to be studied by the Commission.
(4) Term.--Each member shall be appointed for the life of
the Commission.
(5) Time for initial appointments.--The appointment of the
members shall be made not later than 60 days after the date
of enactment of this Act.
(6) Vacancies.--A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled
in the manner in which the original appointment was made, and
shall be made not later than 60 days after the date on which
the vacancy occurred.
(7) Ex officio members.--The Director of the National
Institute of Justice, the Director of the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the Director of the
Community Capacity Development Office, the Director of the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Director of the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, and the Director of Community Oriented
Policing Services (or a representative of each such director)
shall each serve in an ex officio capacity on the Commission
to provide advice and information to the Commission.
(c) Operation.--
(1) Chairperson.--At the initial meeting of the Commission,
the members of the Commission shall elect a chairperson from
among its voting members, by a vote of \2/3\ of the members
of the Commission. The chairperson shall retain this position
for the life of the Commission. If the chairperson leaves the
Commission, a new chairperson shall be selected, by a vote of
\2/3\ of the members of the Commission.
(2) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
chairperson. The initial meeting of the Commission shall take
place not later than 30 days after the date on which all the
members of the Commission have been appointed.
(3) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, and the
Commission may establish a lesser quorum for conducting
hearings scheduled by the Commission.
(4) Rules.--The Commission may establish by majority vote
any other rules for the conduct of Commission business, if
such rules are not inconsistent with this Act or other
applicable law.
(d) Public Hearings.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall hold public hearings.
The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at such
times and places, take such testimony, and receive such
evidence as the Commission considers advisable to carry out
its duties under this section.
(2) Focus of hearings.--The Commission shall hold at least
3 separate public hearings, each of which shall focus on 1 of
the subcategories.
(3) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before
the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to
witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code.
The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be
paid from funds appropriated to the Commission.
(e) Comprehensive Study of Evidence-Based Crime Prevention
and Intervention Strategies.--
(1) In general.--The Commission shall carry out a
comprehensive study of the effectiveness of crime and
delinquency prevention and intervention strategies, organized
around the 3 subcategories.
(2) Matters included.--The study under paragraph (1) shall
include--
(A) a review of research on the general effectiveness of
incorporating crime prevention and intervention strategies
into an overall law enforcement plan;
(B) an evaluation of how to more effectively communicate
the wealth of social science research to practitioners;
(C) a review of evidence regarding the effectiveness of
specific crime prevention and intervention strategies,
focusing on those strategies supported by rigorous evidence;
(D) an identification of--
(i) promising areas for further research and development;
and
(ii) other areas representing gaps in the body of knowledge
that would benefit from additional research and development;
(E) an assessment of the best practices for implementing
prevention and intervention strategies;
(F) an assessment of the best practices for gathering
rigorous evidence regarding the implementation of
intervention and prevention strategies; and
(G) an assessment of those top-tier strategies best suited
for duplication efforts in a range of settings across the
country.
(3) Initial report on top-tier crime prevention and
intervention strategies.--
(A) Distribution.--Not later than 18 months after the date
on which all members of the Commission have been appointed,
the Commission shall submit a public report on the study
carried out under this subsection to--
(i) the President;
(ii) Congress;
(iii) the Attorney General;
(iv) the chief federal public defender of each district;
(v) the chief executive of each State;
(vi) the Director of the Administrative Office of the
Courts of each State.
(vii) the Director of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts; and
(viii) the attorney general of each State.
(B) Contents.--The report under subparagraph (A) shall
include--
(i) the findings and conclusions of the Commission;
[[Page S6893]]
(ii) a summary of the top-tier strategies, including--
(I) a review of the rigorous evidence supporting the
designation of each strategy as top-tier;
(II) a brief outline of the keys to successful
implementation for each strategy; and
(III) a list of references and other information on where
further information on each strategy can be found;
(iii) recommended protocols for implementing crime and
delinquency prevention and intervention strategies generally;
(iv) recommended protocols for evaluating the effectiveness
of crime and delinquency prevention and intervention
strategies; and
(v) a summary of the materials relied upon by the
Commission in preparation of the report.
(C) Consultation with outside authorities.--In developing
the recommended protocols for implementation and rigorous
evaluation of top-tier crime and delinquency prevention and
intervention strategies under this paragraph, the Commission
shall consult with the Committee on Law and Justice at the
National Academy of Science and with national associations
representing the law enforcement and social science
professions, including the National Sheriffs' Association,
the Police Executive Research Forum, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Consortium of Social
Science Associations, and the American Society of
Criminology.
(f) Recommendations Regarding Dissemination of the
Innovative Crime Prevention and Intervention Strategy
Grants.--
(1) Submission.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the date of
the final hearing under subsection (d) relating to a
subcategory, the Commission shall provide the Director of the
National Institute of Justice with recommendations on
qualifying considerations relating to that subcategory for
selecting grant recipients under section 5.
(B) Deadline.--Not later than 13 months after the date on
which all members of the Commission have been appointed, the
Commission shall provide all recommendations required under
this subsection.
(2) Matters included.--The recommendations provided under
paragraph (1) shall include recommendations relating to--
(A) the types of strategies for the applicable subcategory
that would best benefit from additional research and
development;
(B) any geographic or demographic targets;
(C) the types of partnerships with other public or private
entities that might be pertinent and prioritized; and
(D) any classes of crime and delinquency prevention and
intervention strategies that should not be given priority
because of a pre-existing base of knowledge that would
benefit less from additional research and development.
(g) Final Report on the Results of the Innovative Crime
Prevention and Intervention Strategy Grants.--
(1) In general.--Following the close of the 3-year
implementation period for each grant recipient under section
5, the Commission shall collect the results of the study of
the effectiveness of that grant under section 5(b)(3) and
shall submit a public report to the President, the Attorney
General, Congress, the chief executive of each State, and the
attorney general of each State describing each strategy
funded under section 5 and its results. This report shall be
submitted not later than 5 years after the date of the
selection of the chairperson of the Commission.
(2) Collection of information and evidence regarding grant
recipients.--The Commission's collection of information and
evidence regarding each grant recipient under section 5 shall
be carried out by--
(A) ongoing communications with the grant administrator at
the National Institute of Justice;
(B) visits by representatives of the Commission (including
at least 1 member of the Commission) to the site where the
grant recipient is carrying out the strategy with a grant
under section 5, at least once in the second and once in the
third year of that grant;
(C) a review of the data generated by the study monitoring
the effectiveness of the strategy; and
(D) other means as necessary.
(3) Matters included.--The report submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include a review of each strategy carried out with
a grant under section 5, detailing--
(A) the type of crime or delinquency prevention or
intervention strategy;
(B) where the activities under the strategy were carried
out, including geographic and demographic targets;
(C) any partnerships with public or private entities
through the course of the grant period;
(D) the type and design of the effectiveness study
conducted under section 5(b)(3) for that strategy;
(E) the results of the effectiveness study conducted under
section 5(b)(3) for that strategy;
(F) lessons learned regarding implementation of that
strategy or of the effectiveness study conducted under
section 5(b)(3), including recommendations regarding which
types of environments might best be suited for successful
replication; and
(G) recommendations regarding the need for further research
and development of the strategy.
(h) Personnel Matters.--
(1) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of service for the Commission.
(2) Compensation of members.--Members of the Commission
shall serve without compensation.
(3) Staff.--
(A) In general.--The chairperson of the Commission may,
without regard to the civil service laws and regulations,
appoint and terminate an executive director and such other
additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the
Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an
executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the
Commission.
(B) Compensation.--The chairperson of the Commission may
fix the compensation of the executive director and other
personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,
relating to classification of positions and General Schedule
pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive
director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable
for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of
such title.
(4) Detail of federal employees.--With the affirmative vote
of \2/3\ of the members of the Commission, any Federal
Government employee, with the approval of the head of the
appropriate Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission
without reimbursement, and such detail shall be without
interruption or loss of civil service status, benefits, or
privileges.
(i) Contracts for Research.--
(1) National institute of justice.--With a \2/3\
affirmative vote of the members of the Commission, the
Commission may select nongovernmental researchers and experts
to assist the Commission in carrying out its duties under
this Act. The National Institute of Justice shall contract
with the researchers and experts selected by the Commission
to provide funding in exchange for their services.
(2) Other organizations.--Nothing in this subsection shall
be construed to limit the ability of the Commission to enter
into contracts with other entities or organizations for
research necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission
under this section.
(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $5,000,000 to carry out this section.
(k) Termination.--The Commission shall terminate on the
date that is 30 days after the date on which the Commission
submits the last report required by this section.
(l) Exemption.--The Commission shall be exempt from the
Federal Advisory Committee Act.
SEC. 5. INNOVATIVE CRIME PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION STRATEGY
GRANTS.
(a) Grants Authorized.--The Director of the National
Institute of Justice may make grants to public and private
entities to fund the implementation and evaluation of
innovative crime or delinquency prevention or intervention
strategies. The purpose of grants under this section shall be
to provide funds for all expenses related to the
implementation of such a strategy and to conduct a rigorous
study on the effectiveness of that strategy.
(b) Grant Distribution.--
(1) Period.--A grant under this section shall be made for a
period of not more than 3 years.
(2) Amount.--The amount of each grant under this section--
(A) shall be sufficient to ensure that rigorous evaluations
may be performed; and
(B) shall not exceed $2,000,000.
(3) Evaluation set-aside.--
(A) In general.--A grantee shall use not less than $300,000
and not more than $700,000 of the funds from a grant under
this section for a rigorous study of the effectiveness of the
strategy during the 3-year period of the grant for that
strategy.
(B) Methodology of study.--
(i) In general.--Each study conducted under subparagraph
(A) shall use an evaluator and a study design approved by the
employee of the National Institute of Justice hired or
assigned under subsection (c).
(ii) Criteria.--The employee of the National Institute of
Justice hired or assigned under subsection (c) shall
approve--
(I) an evaluator that has successfully carried out multiple
studies producing rigorous evidence of effectiveness; and
(II) a proposed study design that is likely to produce
rigorous evidence of the effectiveness of the strategy.
(iii) Approval.--Before a grant is awarded under this
section, the evaluator and study design of a grantee shall be
approved by the employee of the National Institute of Justice
hired or assigned under subsection (c).
(4) Date of award.--Not later than 6 months after the date
of receiving recommendations relating to a subcategory from
the Commission under section 4(f), the Director of the
National Institute of Justice shall award all grants under
this section relating to that subcategory.
(5) Type of grants.--One-third of the grants made under
this section shall be made in each subcategory. In
distributing grants, the recommendations of the Commission
under section 4(f) shall be considered.
(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $18,000,000 to carry out this subsection.
[[Page S6894]]
(c) Dedicated Staff.--
(1) In general.--The Director of the National Institute of
Justice shall hire or assign a full-time employee to oversee
the grants under this section.
(2) Study oversight.--The employee of the National
Institute of Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1)
shall be responsible for ensuring that grantees adhere to the
study design approved before the applicable grant was
awarded.
(3) Liaison.--The employee of the National Institute of
Justice hired or assigned under paragraph (1) may be used as
a liaison between the Commission and the recipients of a
grant under this section. That employee shall be responsible
for ensuring timely cooperation with Commission requests.
(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated $150,000 for each of fiscal years 2008
through 2012 to carry out this subsection.
(d) Applications.--A public or private entity desiring a
grant under this section shall submit an application at such
time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as
the Director of the National Institute of Justice may
reasonably require.
(e) Cooperation With the Commission.--Grant recipients
shall cooperate with the Commission in providing them with
full information on the progress of the strategy being
carried out with a grant under this section, including--
(1) hosting visits by the members of the Commission to the
site where the activities under the strategy are being
carried out;
(2) providing pertinent information on the logistics of
establishing the strategy for which the grant under this
section was received, including details on partnerships,
selection of participants, and any efforts to publicize the
strategy; and
(3) responding to any specific inquiries that may be made
by the Commission.
SEC. 6. ELIMINATION OF THE RED PLANET CAPITAL VENTURE CAPITAL
PROGRAM.
(a) Reduction of NASA Budget.--Section 203 of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of
2005 (42 U.S.C. 16632) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``$18,686,300,000'' and inserting ``$18,680,300,000''; and
(2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``$10,903,900,000'' and
inserting ``$10,897,900,000''.
(b) Prohibition.--The Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration may not carry out the
Red Planet Capital Venture Capital Program established by the
Administrator during the period of fiscal years 2008 through
2012.
______
By Mr. Wyden (for himself, Mr. Smith, Mr. Craig, Mrs. Murray, Ms.
Cantwell, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Crapo, and Mr. Tester):
S. 1522. A bill to amend the Bonneville Power Administration portions
of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 to
authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2008 through 2014, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined today by all
Members of the Senate from the Northwest: Senator Gordon Smith, Senator
Larry Craig, Senator Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell, Senator Jon
Tester, Senator Max Baucus and Senator Mike Crapo in introducing the
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2007, or FRIMA.
Our legislation extends a homegrown, commonsense program that has a
proven track record in helping restore Northwestern salmon runs.
Dollar-for-dollar, the fish screening and fish passage facilities
funded by our legislation are among the most cost-effective uses of
public and private restoration dollars. These projects protect fish
while producing significant benefits. That is why it is important that
this program be reauthorized and funding be appropriated now.
Since 2001, when the original Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2000, FRIMA, was enacted, more than $9 million in
Federal funds has leveraged nearly $20 million in private, local
funding. This money has been used to protect, enhance and restore more
than 550 rivers miles of important fish habitat and species throughout
Oregon, Washington, Idaho and western Montana. For decades, State,
tribal and Federal fishery agencies in the Pacific Northwest have
identified the screening of irrigation and other water diversions, and
improved fish passage, as critically important for the survival of
salmon and other fish populations.
This program is very popular and has the support of a wide range of
constituents, including community leaders, environmental organizations,
and agricultural producers. Senator Smith and I are proud of the
successful collaborative projects that irrigators and members of the
Oregon Water Resources Congress have completed while putting this
program to work in our home State. Our program also has the support of
Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, irrigators throughout the Northwestern
States, Oregon Trout, American Rivers and the National Audubon Society.
FRIMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program
to plan, design, and construct fish screens, fish passage devices, and
related features. It also authorizes inventories to provide the
information needed for planning and making decisions about the survival
and propagation of all Northwestern fish species. The program is
currently carried out by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf
of the Interior Secretary.
FRIMA provides benefits by: keeping fish out of places where they
should not be, such as in an irrigation system; easing upstream and
downstream fish passage; improving the protection, survival, and
restoration of native fish species; helping avoid new endangered
species listings by protecting and enhancing the fish populations not
yet listed; making progress toward the delisting of listed species;
utilizing a positive, win/win, public-private partnership; and,
assisting in achieving both sustainable agriculture and fisheries.
Since FRIMA's enactment in 2001, 103 projects have been installed. This
is a true partnership and fine example of how our fisheries and farmers
can work together to protect fish species throughout the Northwest.
While he was Governor of Idaho, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne
said, ``. . . . the FRIMA program serves as an excellent example of
government and private land owners working together to promote
conservation. The screening of irrigation diversions plays a key role
in Idaho's efforts to restore salmon populations while protecting rural
economies.'' This is from ``Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Programs, fiscal year 2002-2004'', U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC, July, 2005, page 13.
The bill that we are introducing today specifically extends the
authorization for tbis program through 2014; gives priority to projects
costing less than $2.5 million, a reduction in a targeted project's
cost from $5,000,000 to $2,500,000; clarifies that any Bonneville Power
Administration, BPA, funds provided either directly or through a grant
to another entity shall be considered nonFederal matching funds,
because BPA's funding comes from ratepayers; requires an inventory
report describing funded projects and their benefits; and changes the
administrative expenses formula used by the Fish & Wildlife Service and
the States of Oregon, Washington, Montana and Idaho, so that
administrative costs may be held to a minimum while projects in the
field receive the majority of available funding.
Ultimately, it will take the combined efforts of all interests in our
region to recover our salmon. State and local governments, local
watershed councils, private landowners and the Federal Government need
to continue working together. Initiatives such as the bill I am
introducing today help to sustain the partnerships upon which
successful salmon recovery will be based.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to see this legislation
pass.
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. 1522
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 ``Fisheries Restoration and
Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. PRIORITY PROJECTS.
Section 3(c)(3) of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 777 note; Public Law 106-
502) is amended by striking ``$5,000,000'' and inserting
``$2,500,000''.
SEC. 3. COST SHARING.
Section 7(c) of Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 777 note; Public Law 106-
502) is amended--
(1) by striking ``The value'' and inserting the following:
``(1) In general.--The value''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S6895]]
``(2) Bonneville power administration.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary may, without further
appropriation and without fiscal year limitation, accept any
amounts provided to the Secretary by the Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration.
``(B) Non-federal share.--Any amounts provided by the
Bonneville Power Administration directly or through a grant
to another entity for a project carried under the Program
shall be credited toward the non-Federal share of the costs
of the project.''.
SEC. 4. REPORT.
Section 9 of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 777 note; Public Law 106-
502) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``any'' before ``amounts are made''; and
(2) by inserting after ``Secretary shall'' the following:
``, after partnering with local governmental entities and the
States in the Pacific Ocean drainage area,''.
SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 10 of the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2000 (16 U.S.C. 777 note; Public Law 106-
502) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a), by striking ``2001 through 2005''
and inserting ``2008 through 2014''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (2) and
inserting the following:
``(2) Administrative expenses.--
``(A) Definition of administrative expense.--In this
paragraph, the term `administrative expense' means, except as
provided in subparagraph (B)(iii)(II), any expenditure
relating to--
``(i) staffing and overhead, such as the rental of office
space and the acquisition of office equipment; and
``(ii) the review, processing, and provision of
applications for funding under the Program.
``(B) Limitation.--
``(i) In general.--Not more than 6 percent of amounts made
available to carry out this Act for each fiscal year may be
used for Federal and State administrative expenses of
carrying out this Act.
``(ii) Federal and state shares.--To the maximum extent
practicable, of the amounts made available for administrative
expenses under clause (i)--
``(I) 50 percent shall be provided to the State agencies
provided assistance under the Program; and
``(II) an amount equal to the cost of 1 full-time
equivalent Federal employee, as determined by the Secretary,
shall be provided to the Federal agency carrying out the
Program.
``(iii) State expenses.--Amounts made available to States
for administrative expenses under clause (i)--
``(I) shall be divided evenly among all States provided
assistance under the Program; and
``(II) may be used by a State to provide technical
assistance relating to the program, including any staffing
expenditures (including staff travel expenses) associated
with--
``(aa) arranging meetings to promote the Program to
potential applicants;
``(bb) assisting applicants with the preparation of
applications for funding under the Program; and
``(cc) visiting construction sites to provide technical
assistance, if requested by the applicant.''.
______
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Snowe, Mr.
Carper, Ms. Murkowski, and Ms. Landrieu):
S. 1526. A bill to direct the Secretary of Energy to develop
standards for general service lamps that will operate more efficiently
and assist in reducing costs to consumers, business concerns,
government entities, and other users, to require that general service
lamps and related products manufactured or sold in interstate commerce
after 2013 meet those standards, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues Senator Carper,
Snowe, Lieberman, Murkowski, and Landrieu in introducing two important
domestic energy bills.
The Senate has an opportunity to save consumers $15 billion annually
in energy costs, eliminate the need for hundreds of new power plants,
prevent the release of tons of mercury into our environment annually,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 trillion pounds, lead the world in
the innovation of new technologies and increase domestic employment
opportunities.
How? The good old fashion light bulb.
Thomas Edison was one of our Nation's greatest inventors. He holds
nearly 1100 patents, including the light bulb. Over 125 years ago, he
invented the conventional incandescent light bulb. While most of his
other inventions have been significantly improved upon since then,
Edison's incandescent light bulb is still the most widely used bulb
today. Unfortunately, only 10 percent of the electricity that goes into
this light bulb is actually used to produce light. The remaining 90
percent is often wasted as heat.
Just as another Edison invention, the phonograph, evolved into
compact discs and mp3 technologies, today, American innovation has
improved upon the light bulb. This innovation will continue. Light bulb
manufacturers and our hard-working Americans have developed
technologies that are capable of reducing the electricity use
associated with conventional incandescent light bulbs from between 10
to over 50 percent. These bulbs are available today.
These technological and domestic manufacturing capabilities can save
consumers billions of dollars a year in energy costs.
My colleagues and I are proud to introduce two bills that will ensure
that we take advantage of these new technologies to save energy, save
consumers on their electricity bills and promote American ingenuity.
The first is the Bright Idea Act of 2007. This bill will establish
efficiency targets for light bulbs that will cut light bulb energy
consumption by at least half in just 6 years and triple the efficiency
of today's incandescent bulbs by 2018.
These efficiency standards are merely the beginning. The bill
establishes a working group of light bulb manufacturers, labor unions,
environmentalists and consumer groups to evaluate the state of bulb
technologies and domestic manufacturing capabilities every 3 years. If
the technology has advanced and our businesses are capable of higher
standards, the Secretary of Energy may raise these targets.
The bill also authorizes a technology-neutral research and
development program to help our domestic manufacturers, in partnership
with our national laboratories and universities, advance new lighting
technologies and directs the Secretary of Energy to educate consumers
about the benefits of using newer light bulbs.
We recognize the concerns related to new light bulbs such as mercury
release and labeling requirements. The bill requires the Secretary,
together with the EPA, to provide recommendations to Congress on how to
deal with these challenges.
The second component of this light bulb package that we are
introducing today is a bill that will ensure that our Nation is capable
of taking full advantage of America's lighting innovation through the
creation of additional domestic employment opportunities. This bill
provides a construction tax credit for the costs associated with the
renovation and construction of domestic light bulb manufacturing
facilities designed to produce the next generation of lighting
technology.
I urge Senators to join my colleagues and me in saving consumers
billions of dollars in electricity costs, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, tempering energy demand, eliminating the need for at least
dozens of new power plants annually, preventing the release of tons of
mercury into our environment each year and building upon our innovation
by creating additional domestic employment opportunities for Americans
by supporting the Bright Idea Act of 2007 and tax incentives for
domestic lighting technologies. I ask consent that the text of the bill
be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1526
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 ``Bright Idea Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE LAMPS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Establishment of standards.--As soon as practicable
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
Energy shall initiate a project to establish technical
standards for general service lamps.
(2) Consultation with interested parties.--In carrying out
the project, the Secretary shall consult with representatives
of environmental organizations, labor organizations, general
service lamp manufacturers, consumer organizations, and other
interested parties.
(3) Minimum initial standards; deadline.--The initial
technical standards established shall be standards that
enable those general service lamps to provide levels of
illumination equivalent to the levels of illumination
provided by general service lamps generally available in
2007, but with--
[[Page S6896]]
(A) a lumens per watt rating of not less than 30 by
calendar year 2013; and
(B) a lumens per watt rating of not less than 45 by
calendar year 2018.
(b) Manufacture and Distribution in Interstate Commerce.--
If the Secretary of Energy, after consultation with the
interested parties described in subsection (a)(2), determines
that general service lamps meeting the standards established
under subsection (a) are generally available for purchase
throughout the United States at costs that are substantially
equivalent (taking into account useful life, lifecycle costs,
domestic manufacturing capabilities, energy consumption, and
such other factors as the Secretary deems appropriate) to the
cost of the general service lamps they would replace, then
the Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to
require that at least 95 percent of general service lamps
sold, offered for sale, or otherwise made available in the
United States meet the standards established under subsection
(a), except for those general service lamps described in
subsection (c).
(c) Exception.--The standards established by the Secretary
under subsection (a) shall not apply to general service lamps
used in applications in which compliance with those standards
is not feasible, as determined by the Secretary.
(d) Revised Standards.--After the initial standards are
established under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consult
periodically with the interested parties described in
subsection (a)(2) with respect to whether those standards
should be changed. The Secretary may change the standards,
and the dates and percentage of lamps to which the changed
standards apply under subsection (b), if after such
consultation the Secretary determines that such changes are
appropriate.
(e) Report.--The Secretary shall submit reports
periodically to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Technology, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, and the House of Representatives Committee on
Energy and Commerce with respect to the development and
promulgation of standards for lamps and lamp-related
technology, such as switches, dimmers, ballast, and non-
general service lighting, that includes the Secretary's
findings and recommendations with respect to such standards.
SEC. 3. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy may carry out a
lighting technology research and development program--
(1) to support the research, development, demonstration,
and commercial application of lamps and related technologies
sold, offered for sale, or otherwise made available in the
United States; and
(2) to assist manufacturers of general service lamps in the
manufacturing of general service lamps that, at a minimum,
achieve the lumens per watt ratings described in section
2(a).
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2013.
(c) Sunset.--The program under this section shall terminate
on September 30, 2015.
SEC. 4. CONSUMER EDUCATION PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy, in consultation
with the Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, shall
carry out a comprehensive national program to educate
consumers about the benefits of using light bulbs that have
improved efficiency ratings.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $1,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2014.
SEC. 5. REPORT ON MERCURY USE AND RELEASE.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Energy, in cooperation with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall
submit to Congress a report describing recommendations
relating to the means by which the Federal Government may
reduce or prevent the release of mercury during the
manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal of light
bulbs.
SEC. 6. REPORT ON LAMP LABELING.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, in
cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Secretary of Energy, shall submit
to Congress a report describing current lamp labeling
practices by lamp manufacturers and recommendations for a
national labeling standard.
______
By Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. Lugar):
S. 1529. A bill to amend the Food Stamp Act of 1977 to end benefit
erosion, support working families with child care expenses, encourage
retirement and education savings, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, throughout my time in the United States
Congress, I have worked with my colleagues to promote the economic
security of low-income and working American families. In many respects,
we have made significant progress, but in others, much work remains to
be done. The last several years have been difficult ones for low-income
Americans. Since 2000, the number of Americans living in poverty has
increased by 5 million. At the same time, wages have stagnated for
Americans in the bottom tenth of earners. It's no surprise that more
and more Americans have turned to vital Federal food assistance such as
the Food Stamp Program, which this year will serve 26 million
Americans.
The Food Stamp Program is our Nation's first line of defense against
hunger, providing modest but vital benefits to millions of American
families, and also serving our country during times of extraordinary
need. In fact, the Food Stamp Program played a crucial role in helping
millions of Americans who were devastated by the Gulf Coast hurricanes
of 2005.
Unfortunately, Congress has not taken action to modernize the program
so that it addresses the current challenges that low-income Americans
must face. It is time for Congress to make such needed program
improvements. With the food stamp reauthorization pending as part of
the upcoming farm bill, we have an opportunity and an obligation to
invest in the Food Stamp Program and, in so doing, in the food security
and health of our country's families.
Today I am joined by my good friend and colleague, Senator Lugar from
Indiana, in introducing the Food Stamp Fairness and Benefit Restoration
Act of 2007. I thank the Senator from Indiana for his long-time efforts
to fight hunger in America, and for joining me today to introduce this
legislation.
The bill that we are introducing today contains several particular
improvements.
First and foremost, the legislation would halt food stamp benefit
erosion that is occurring as a result of draconian cuts enacted in the
mid-90s. As a result of these cuts, food stamp benefits are eroding
with every passing year and, as they do, the economic situations of
families receiving food stamps grows ever more precarious.
Second, the bill would enable families to deduct fully the costs of
child care for purposes of eligibility and benefit determination.
Currently, program rules allow families to deduct just $175 per month
of the cost of child care. Not only has this deduction not been
adjusted to account for increases in the cost of child care, but it
comes nowhere near covering the cost of child care, which nationwide
averages almost $650 per month.
Third, the legislation would update archaic program rules regarding
the resources that a family may have and still receive food stamps. In
1977, Congress established a program rule that said that a family may
have $1,750 in available liquid assets and still receive food stamps.
Had this asset limit been adjusted for inflation, today a family would
be able to have nearly $6,000 in savings and still receive food stamps.
Instead, we allow just $2,000. This makes no sense. Not only does it
actively discourage families from saving for their future, it all but
requires families that experience an economic shock such as a job loss
or a medical emergency to spend down their savings to hit absolute rock
bottom just to receive meager food benefits. It is time to adjust this
asset limit and stop discouraging families from doing what we tell
every other American that they must do--save. To that end, the bill
also exempts tax-preferred retirement and educational savings accounts.
Fourth, this bill restores food stamp eligibility for legal immigrant
households. This too is nothing but a basic restoration of a principle
of fairness that existed prior to the mid-1990s. Unfortunately,
Congress chose, unwisely in my opinion, to take away benefits from
those legal immigrants who played by the rules and legally entered our
country. Keep in mind these are families who work and are part of our
society. I disagreed with the decision then and I disagree with it
today. It is time to rectify this grave injustice and abide by the
basic principle that those who enter the country legally and play by
the same rules as the rest of us, should also be eligible for the same
benefits for which they pay taxes. Our bill would do that.
Fifth, the legislation would set more humane eligibility standards
for unemployed, childless adults. These individuals are among the
poorest in our country and often have significant
[[Page S6897]]
mental health and substance abuse problems. They are, in short, among
the people who need our help the most. But ironically, they are among
those who we deny the most basic of food assistance. Currently, such
adults can receive food stamps for only 3 months out of every 3 years.
This legislation proposes a modestly more sympathetic standard of 6
months out of every 2-year period.
Finally, my bill would increase funding for commodity purchases for
food banks and community food providers. U.S. Government donations to
food banks have dropped dramatically in recent years, even as the
number of Americans seeking help from community food providers has
consistently increased.
I know that the budget is tight and that Congress must be prudent in
decisions about how we allocate funding. But I also know that there is
no function of the federal government as basic and as critical as
ensuring that low-income Americans, families with children, elderly
living on fixed incomes, and persons with disabilities, have enough
food for their next meal. It is past time for Congress to act in this
regard, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will
join me and the Senator from Indiana to enact the Food Stamp Fairness
and Benefit Restoration Act of 2007.
____________________