[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.

                          ____________________