[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7641-S7653]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      Mrs. CLINTON (for herself and Mr. Smith):
  S. 1604. A bill to Increase the number of well-educated nurses, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Nursing 
Education and Quality of Health Care Act of 2007. This legislation is 
essential for addressing our current and future nursing shortages.
  I have been hearing from nurses and health care providers from every 
part of New York that we are facing an impending nursing crisis and 
their stories echo what nurses across the Nation tell me.
  By 2014, the Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that there will be 
over 1 million job openings for registered nurses. In New York alone, 
we will need to produce over 80,000 new RNs to meet these projections. 
One of our greatest needs will be in rural areas where the pool of 
nurses is small and the loss of just one nurse from the workforce can 
have a profound impact on the health of the community.
  I can proudly say we have made good progress in New York on one 
front. In 2006, 30 percent more registered nurses graduated than in 
2004. I believe that we can credit this increase to the Nurse 
Reinvestment Act that was signed into law in 2002. Through this 
bipartisan legislation, we were able to make great strides in 
strengthening our Nation's nursing workforce.
  The Nurse Reinvestment Act included a number of critical initiatives 
including one from the bipartisan bill I introduced with Senator Smith 
to retain nurses who are already in the profession by encouraging 
hospitals to become magnet hospitals. Hospitals that have achieved 
magnet status report lower mortality rates, higher patient 
satisfaction, greater cost-efficiency, and patients experiencing 
shorter stays in hospitals and intensive care units underlining the 
importance of nursing in our health care system.
  I am here today because nurses are still facing an urgent situation 
that requires our action. Even though we are making progress in 
graduating more nurses, in 2006 over 32,323 qualified applicants were 
turned away from nursing schools in the United States. In New York, it 
is estimated that nearly 3,000 nursing school applicants were denied 
entry. Put simply, we don't have the capacity in our nursing schools to 
train qualified potential students.

  Not only are we facing a nursing shortage, we are setting ourselves 
up for a potential nursing crisis if we don't address the impending 
faculty shortage that will occur as baby boomer nurse faculty reach 
retirement age, leaving fewer and fewer faculty to teach the next 
generation of nurses.
  We need to pave the way and recruit more people into the nursing 
profession. This shortage impacts not only nurses, but also patients 
since we know that the quality of care they receive is directly related 
to nurses.
  The Nursing Education and Quality of Health Care Act supports 
recruitment, education, and training to help alleviate the nursing 
shortage in New York and in the rest of the Nation. This act will 
establish distance learning opportunities for peop1ein rural 
communities who wish to pursue the nursing profession without leaving 
their home town. This legislation will also provide tuition assistance 
and loan forgiveness for those who choose to practice in rural 
communities.
  To increase the number of nurses in the workforce we need to expand 
the nursing faculty so that thousands of qualified students are not 
turned away from the profession. This legislation will fund programs 
that enhance recruitment of faculty and allow for the expansion of 
nursing education programs by funding distance learning innovation, and 
by expanding the recruitment and training of community-based faculty 
for classroom and clinical education.
  We also need nurses to participate and collaborate in patient-safety 
initiatives for the well-being of patients. The Nursing Education and 
Quality of Health Care Act will take the lead by supporting projects 
that integrate patient safety practices into nursing education programs 
and enhance the leadership of nurses in improving patients' outcomes 
within their health care settings.
  We will all rely on nurses sometime in our life, and we need to make 
sure that this essential member of the health care team will always be 
present at our bedsides.
  I am pleased to introduce legislation that supports nurses and that 
is supported by nursing organizations like the American Association of 
Colleges of Nursing, the American Nurses Association, the American 
Organization of Nurse Executives, the Brooklyn Nursing Partnership, and 
the New York State Area Health Education Center System. Nurses are 
critical to the successful operation of our hospitals and the quality 
of care patients receive and we must do everything we can to address 
the nursing shortage and make nursing an attractive and rewarding 
profession.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator 
Clinton, in introducing this important piece of legislation to help 
alleviate the nursing shortage in our Nation. This legislation will 
work to ensure that our nursing schools have increased capacity and the 
tools necessary to properly train nurses to enter into the workforce.
  As many of my colleagues know, the shortage of nurses is a current 
and ever increasing problem in our Nation. As baby boomers age and 
demands for health care continue to increase, we will further see a 
shortage of nurses, which is not sustainable for the health needs of 
our Nation. While the number of graduates from nursing programs is 
increasing, we are still facing ongoing critical shortages and we must 
do better.
  Incredibly, while we have an ever-increasing demand for nurses, we 
are also seeing our schools of nursing turn away scores of students 
each year who are viable candidates due to lack of capacity and lack of 
teaching staff. In fact, in my home State of Oregon, for each student 
position available in nursing programs, there are six applicants. This 
forces many young men and women who want to enter this field of work to 
give up on pursuing a nursing career. This is one of many reasons that 
we currently have 118,000 vacant positions for nurses nationwide, this 
translates to a national vacancy rate of 8.5 percent.
  Our entire Nation is on an aging trajectory in all areas, and the 
nursing workforce is no exception. In Oregon, nearly half of our nurses 
are age 50 or older, and the proportion of nurses over the age of 50 
has doubled in the last 20 years. We also know that according to a 
survey in 2006, 55 percent of surveyed

[[Page S7642]]

nurses reported their intention to retire between 2011 and 2020. 
Further, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration, 
HRSA, this will leave America with a deficit of more than 1 million 
nurses by the year 2020.
  The bill that I am introducing today with Senator Clinton will 
provide grants to enhance rural nurse training programs by improving 
the technology infrastructure. It also will provide grants for nurse 
faculty development so that schools of nursing can increase the number 
of nursing faculty in their programs, thereby increasing the number of 
students they can accept into their programs. This bill also will 
encourage pipeline programs to help increase the number of rural 
residents who pursue nursing in their communities. Lastly, it will 
provide grants for partnerships that advance the education, delivery 
and measurement of quality and patient safety in nursing practices. 
These important provisions will help in the recruitment and training of 
nurses as well as work towards enhanced quality and safety of nursing 
across the Nation.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this bill, and I look 
forward to working with Chairman Kennedy and other members of the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to secure its passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Salazar, 
        Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Smith, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, 
        Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Thune, Mr. Dorgan, Ms. Collins, Mr. 
        Johnson, Mr. Enzi, and Mrs. Lincoln):
  S. 1605. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
protect and preserve access of Medicare beneficiaries in rural areas to 
health care providers under the Medicare program, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, it is with mixed emotions that I rise 
today to introduce the Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, 
or R-HoPE. This proposal is the result of months of work with my friend 
and colleague, Senator Craig Thomas, who just passed away. In fact, 
Senator Thomas and I were getting ready to introduce this bill the week 
we lost him.
  This particular legislation is the product of work that Senator 
Thomas and I have done over many years as cochair of the rural health 
caucus. So it is a poignant moment for me to come to the floor to 
introduce this bill. I am asking my colleagues that we name this bill 
the Craig Thomas Rural Hospital and Provider Equity Act of 2007, as we 
pay tribute to the service of our colleague, Senator Thomas.
  I can think of no better champion of rural health than Senator Craig 
Thomas, and there is not a more appropriate way to honor his Senate 
career than by enacting this legislation that will carry his name.
  As Senator Thomas and I continually argued in this Chamber, Medicare 
shortchanges many rural hospitals and providers. Before the Medicare 
Modernization Act, rural providers received one-half the payments that 
urban areas received--one-half to provide exactly the same treatment 
for exactly the same illness. That was unfair.
  Senator Thomas and I teamed up at the time to make changes that were 
in the Medicare prescription drug bill that began to level the playing 
field, but those provisions are about to run out.
  I would be the first to admit that health care can be more expensive 
in urban areas than rural areas, but it is not twice as much. When I 
ask the doctors and hospital administrators of my State if they get a 
rural discount when they buy technology for hospitals, they laugh, they 
chuckle, they say, no, they don't get any rural discount. We know now 
it actually costs more to recruit doctors to rural parts of the country 
than it does more urban settings, and we know while there is some cost 
differential, it is not a 100-percent cost differential.
  The Medicare bill, the prescription drug bill recognized this 
disparity in reimbursement and took steps to close the gap. Even with 
the additional funding, many rural hospitals and providers continue to 
experience negative margins.
  If we are to maintain access to health care in rural areas, we cannot 
allow providers to lose 3 percent on nearly every patient they see. But 
that is what is occurring in rural America today.
  Congress needs to take steps to fairly reimburse rural providers for 
the care they provide. The Craig Thomas R-HoPE bill will build on the 
progress made in the medicare Prescription Drug Act and add new 
provisions that would protect access to rural health care.
  First, the bill will fulfill the promise made to those living and 
traveling in rural areas that they don't have to travel far for 
hospital care. The bill would also provide more reflective 
reimbursement for the cost of labor in rural areas. I should say 
reimbursement that more fairly reflects the costs in rural areas since 
they are often competing with more urban areas in the global health 
care marketplace.
  In addition, our proposal would provide the resources currently 
lacking in rural hospitals to repair crumbling buildings. It also 
includes two changes to the Critical Access Hospital Program and will 
put these facilities on a sounder financial footing.
  Second, R-HoPE will promise that rural Americans can see a doctor 
when they are sick. As is the case with most rural States, much of 
North Dakota is designated as a health professional shortage 
area. Recruiting doctors is extremely difficult. Our bill would extend 
the provision in current law that provides incentive payments for 
doctors who practice in rural areas.

  Third, our bill would guarantee that when there is an emergency, 
there is an ambulance there to respond. Many rural ambulance services 
are closing because of lower Medicare reimbursement, resulting in 
response times far above the national average. R-HOPE would protect 
rural ambulance services and those living and traveling in these parts 
of the country by providing a 5-percent bonus payment for 2008 and 
2009.
  Finally, our bill takes a number of steps to help protect the 
availability of other health care providers, such as rural health 
clinics, home health agencies, and mental health professionals. This 
bill achieves the goal Senator Thomas and I have had for a number of 
years, that rural America enjoy the same level of health care access 
and affordability more urban areas enjoy. Rural America is the heart of 
our country. We cannot turn our backs on these areas and their health 
care needs.
  Before I close, I also want to recognize Senator Thomas's staff 
member, Erin Tuggle, who has worked tirelessly on this legislation on 
behalf of rural health care and served Senator Craig Thomas so very 
well. She played a key role in developing this legislation, along with 
my staff, and I thank her for her efforts.
  It is my hope this legislation, which will carry Senator Craig 
Thomas's name, will help strengthen our rural health care system. I 
can't think of a better tribute to my friend and our colleague, Senator 
Craig Thomas.
  At this point, I wish to indicate that Senator Roberts is my leading 
cosponsor, Senator Roberts of Kansas, and we are joined by Senator 
Harkin, Senator Salazar, Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, Senator 
Smith, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, Senator Snowe, Senator Murray, 
Senator Thune, Senator Dorgan, Senator Collins, Senator Johnson, and 
Senator Enzi. I ask unanimous consent that they all appear as 
cosponsors of this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CONRAD. I should also indicate before I close that this bill has 
now been endorsed by the National Rural Health Association, the 
American Hospital Association, the American Ambulance Association, the 
American Telemedicine Association, the National Association for Home 
Care & Hospice, the American Association for Marriage and Family 
Therapy, the National Association of Rural Health Clinics, the North 
Dakota Hospital Association, and the Federation of American Hospitals, 
all of them joining together to send a message that this legislation is 
needed and it is needed now.
  This is one way we can pay a tangible tribute to the service of 
Senator Craig Thomas. I think all of us who knew him and worked with 
him knew him as

[[Page S7643]]

a quintessential gentleman, and I hope very much that others of our 
colleagues will join us in cosponsoring this legislation in this 
tribute to Senator Thomas.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. LEVIN (for himself, Mr. Akaka, Mr. McCain, Mr. Warner, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mr. Graham, Mr.  Kennedy, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
        Rockefeller, Ms. Collins, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Obama, 
        Mrs. Dole, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Thune, 
        Mr. Reed, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Brown, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
        Tester, Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Bayh, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. 
        Pryor, Mr. Webb, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. Durbin, Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 1606. A bill to provide for the establishment of a comprehensive 
policy on the care and management of wounded warriors in order to 
facilitate and enhance their care, rehabilitation, physical evaluation, 
transition from care by the Department of Defense to care by the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and transition from military service to 
civilian life, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed 
Services.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President in February, a series of articles in the 
Washington Post highlighted shortfalls in the care and treatment of our 
wounded warriors at the Walter Reed Army Hospital. These articles 
described deplorable living conditions for some service members in an 
outpatient status; a bungled, bureaucratic process for assigning 
disability ratings that determine whether a service member will be 
medically retired with health and other benefits for himself and for 
his family; and a clumsy handoff between the Department of Defense and 
the Department of Veterans Affairs as the military member transitions 
from one department to the other. The Nation's shock and dismay 
reflected the American people's support, respect, and gratitude for the 
men and women who put on our Nation's uniform. They deserve the best, 
not shoddy medical care and bureaucratic snafus.
  The Armed Services Committee and the Veterans' Affairs Committee held 
a rare joint hearing to identify the problems our wounded soldiers are 
facing. These committees continue to work together to address these 
issues, culminating in the bill we introduce today, the Dignified 
Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act. Our bill addresses the issues of 
substandard facilities, inconsistent disability ratings, lack of 
seamless transition from DOD to the VA, inadequacy of severance pay, 
care and treatment for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress 
disorder, medical care for caregivers not eligible for TRICARE, and the 
sharing of medical records between the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
  The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act requires the 
Secretary of Defense to establish standards for the treatment of and 
housing for military outpatients. These standards will require 
compliance with Federal and other standards for hospital facilities and 
operations and will be uniform and consistent throughout the Department 
of Defense.
  Another shortfall identified in the aftermath of the Washington Post 
articles is the inconsistency in disability ratings for the same and 
similar disabilities. In many instances, disability ratings assigned by 
the Veterans' Administration are higher than the disability ratings 
assigned by the military services for the same injuries. The military 
services are not even consistent among themselves in assigning 
disabilities. The Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act 
addresses the issue of disparate disability ratings in several ways.
  First, it requires the military departments to use VA standards for 
rating disabilities, allowing the military to deviate from these 
standards only when the deviation will result in a higher disability 
rating for the service member. In our view, requiring all of the 
military departments and the VA to use the same standards should result 
in identical disability ratings for the same or similar disabilities.

  Second, the act will change the statutory presumption used by the 
military departments for determining whether a disability is incurred 
incident to military service or existed prior to military service to 
mirror the statutory presumption used by the VA. Currently, the 
military rule is that a disability is presumed to be incident to 
service if a member has been in the military for 8 or more years. That 
leaves out a high percentage of our troops. Under the revised rule, a 
disability will be presumed to be incident to service when the member 
has 6 months or more of active military service and the disability was 
not noted at the time the member entered active duty, unless compelling 
evidence or medical judgement warrant a finding that the disability 
existed before the member entered active duty. This should avoid the 
situation where the military assigns a disability rating of zero 
percent on the basis that a disability existed prior to service and the 
VA later awards a higher disability rating and disability compensation 
by using the VA presumption to conclude that the very same disability 
is service connected.
  Third, the act will require two pilot programs to test the viability 
of using the VA to assess disability ratings for the Department of 
Defense. One pilot program will require the Veterans' Administration to 
assign the disability ratings for the Department of Defense, based on 
all medical conditions that render the service member medically unfit 
for military service. The other pilot program will require the military 
department and the VA to jointly assign the disability rating, also 
based on all medical conditions that render the service member 
medically unfit for military service.
  Fourth, the act will require the Secretary of Defense to establish a 
board to review and, where appropriate, correct disability 
determinations of 20 percent or less for those service members 
separated from service because they were medically unfit for duty after 
September 11, 2001. This will give our service members an opportunity 
to correct unwarranted low disability ratings and ensure that 
disability ratings are uniform and equitable.
  The Institute of Medicine has just completed a study for the 
Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission, concluding that current VA 
standards are out of step with modern medical advances in conditions 
such as traumatic brain injury and modern concepts of disability. The 
Disability Commission is due to report to Congress on its findings and 
recommendations in October. The Dignified Treatment for Wounded 
Warriors Act will require the Department of Defense to use any updated 
standards as soon as the Veterans' Administration adopts them.
  Our bill addresses the lack of a seamless transition from the 
military to the Veterans' Administration by requiring the Secretary of 
Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly develop a 
comprehensive policy on the care and management of service members who 
will transition from DOD to the VA. This policy will address the care 
and management of service members in a medical hold or medical holdover 
status, the medical evaluation and disability evaluation of disabled 
service members, the return of disabled service members to active duty 
when appropriate, and the transition of disabled service members from 
receipt of care and services from the Department of Defense to receipt 
of care and services from the VA.
  Another problem identified by the committees is the inadequacy of 
separation pay for junior service members. Those separated with a 
disability rating of 30 percent or higher are medically retired with 
health care and additional benefits for the service members and their 
families. Those separated with a disability rating of less than 30 
percent are discharged and given a severance pay that is based on how 
long they were in the military. For example, a service member with 2 
years of service will receive the equivalent of only 4 months basic pay 
as severance pay. This bill increases the minimum severance pay to 
1 year's basic pay for those separated for disabilities incurred in a 
combat zone and 6 months' basic pay for all others. Furthermore, under 
current law, severance pay is deducted from any VA disability 
compensation these service members receive. Our bill changes that by 
eliminating the requirement that severance

[[Page S7644]]

pay be deducted from disability compensation for disabilities incurred 
in a combat zone.

  The signature injuries of the current conflicts are post-traumatic 
stress disorder, commonly referred to as PTSD, and traumatic brain 
injury, referred to as TBI. We still have a lot to do to adequately 
respond to these injuries. To address this, the Dignified Treatment of 
Wounded Warriors Act authorizes $50 million for improved diagnosis, 
treatment, and rehabilitation of members with TBI or PTSD. The act also 
requires the Secretary of Defense to establish Centers of Excellence 
for PTSD and for TBI. These centers will conduct research, train health 
care professionals, and provide guidance throughout the Department of 
Defense in the prevention, diagnosis, mitigation, treatment, and 
rehabilitation of these injuries. Finally, the act requires the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs, to report to Congress with comprehensive plans to prevent, 
diagnose, mitigate, treat, and otherwise respond to TBI and PTSD. These 
plans will address improvements of personnel protective equipment in 
addition to addressing the medical aspects of diagnosing and treating 
TBI and PTSD.
  We are also addressing the problem that exists because medically 
retired service members, who are eligible for TRICARE as retirees, do 
not have access to some of the cutting-edge treatments that are 
available to members still on active duty. To address this shortfall, 
the act authorizes medically retired service members with disability 
ratings of 50 percent or higher to receive the active duty medical 
benefit for 3 years after the member leaves active duty.
  We are also beginning to address the problem created when parents, 
siblings, and others who are not normally authorized to receive 
military health care leave their homes to serve as caregivers to 
military personnel with severe injuries while the members are 
undergoing extensive medical treatment. In many cases, these family 
members leave their jobs and lose their job-related health care. Even 
though these family members are in a military hospital, they are not 
authorized to receive medical care from the doctors at that facility 
when they need it. To address this, the act authorizes military and VA 
health care providers to provide urgent and emergency medical care and 
counseling to family members on invitational travel orders.
  One of the significant shortfalls in the smooth transition from 
military health care to VA health care is the inability to share health 
records between the two Departments. Our bill will establish a 
Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency 
Program Office to develop and implement a joint electronic health 
record.
  The Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act is a comprehensive 
bill that lays out a path for the Department of Defense and the 
Department of Veterans Affairs to address shortfalls in the care and 
management of our wounded warriors. They deserve the best care and 
support we can muster. The American people rightly insist on no less.
  Mr. AKAKA Mr. President, as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I was 
delighted to work with Senator Levin, chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, and others on this important legislation, the Dignified 
Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act of 2007. I really appreciated the 
willingness of the Armed Services Committee staff to work in close 
cooperation with the Veterans' Affairs Committee staff on its drafting. 
This legislation would improve the policies which govern the care and 
management of all servicemembers with a serious illness or injury that 
might render them unfit for duty in order to facilitate and enhance 
their care, rehabilitation, and physical evaluation, as well as improve 
their transition from the Department of Defense to the Department of 
Veterans Affairs.
  This measure is a direct outcome of an unprecedented joint hearing 
held on April 12, 2007, by the Senate Armed Services and Veterans' 
Affairs Committees during which we heard testimony on the transition of 
servicemembers from DoD to VA. This measure will go a long way toward 
addressing the problems that first gained public attention with the 
stories about Walter Reed Army Medical Center and will help achieve the 
goal of providing optimal care and a truly seamless transition for the 
nation's wounded warriors.
  I view issues relating to those servicemembers who may be rendered 
unfit as a result of an illness or injury from two different 
perspectives, both as chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and 
as a member of the Armed Services Committee. As I said at the joint 
hearing, this is not solely a DoD or a VA problem. While DoD and VA are 
separate organizations, they both deal with the same servicemembers. A 
key element of this proposed legislation is the requirement that DoD 
and VA develop a comprehensive policy for transitioning those with 
serious illnesses or injuries from Active Duty military status to 
veteran status. As part of this effort, the two Departments will be 
required to conduct a comprehensive review of all regulations, 
policies, and procedures that impact these servicemembers and to 
identify best practices when developing joint policy. If we are going 
to fix the problems identified at Walter Reed, there must be uniform 
standards for the transition process that are understood by all parties 
and that are consistently applied by the military services.
  I am delighted that the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act 
embraces the reforms to the DoD Disability Evaluation System contained 
in S. 1252, legislation I introduced on April 30, 2007. For the 
Disability Evaluation System to work fairly and consistently, there 
must be uniform use by the military services of VA's disability rating 
schedule. The services must take into account all conditions which 
render a servicemember unfit when making a disability rating, as well 
as develop a program for the uniform training of Medical Evaluation 
Board and Physical Evaluation Board personnel. It is also essential 
that DoD develop a system of accountability to ensure that the military 
services comply with disability rating regulations and policies.
  I am pleased to note that on June 27 the Veterans' Affairs Committee 
will conduct a markup of legislation that will complement the efforts 
of the Armed Services Committee to make sure that VA appropriately 
addresses problems confronting seriously wounded and injured 
servicemembers once they become veterans.
  I commend Chairman Levin and the staff of the Armed Services 
Committee for crafting this comprehensive legislation. It will go a 
long way toward providing DoD and VA with a roadmap for improving the 
transition processes and ensuring that seriously ill and injured 
servicemembers and veterans get the benefits and services they need and 
deserve, the benefits and services these courageous men and women have 
earned by their service.
  I urge all of our colleagues to support this proposed legislation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee I am pleased to co-sponsor the Dignified Treatment 
of Wounded Warriors Act, which would ensure that wounded and injured 
members of the Armed Forces receive the care and benefits that they 
deserve.
  We were all surprised and deeply disappointed by the conditions at 
Walter Reed and the problems that our wounded warriors faced after 
their inpatient care was complete, living in substandard conditions at 
Building 18, being treated poorly, battling a Cold War-era disability 
evaluation process, and for some, simply falling through the cracks.
  Since February of 2007, many encouraging changes have been initiated 
by the Department of Defense. First and foremost, Secretary Gates 
established and enforced a culture of accountability for the leadership 
failures that lead to the tragedy at Walter Reed. Medical facilities 
have now been inspected by all three military departments, and 
improvements are underway. Additional counselors and support has been 
provided to families. On April 25, 2007, a new Warrior Transition 
Brigade stood up at Walter Reed to manage all the needs of wounded and 
ill soldiers, both Active and Reserve. DOD has begun to exert greater 
management responsibility for the disability

[[Page S7645]]

evaluation systems of the military departments. We are on the right 
track to address the problems at Walter Reed and at other hospitals. We 
need to ensure that the effort is sustained. This legislation will 
ensure that these efforts continue.
  The legislation requires that the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans 
Affairs work together to develop new policy to better manage the care 
and transition of our wounded soldiers. This policy would address many 
of the concerns that have been raised by wounded soldiers and their 
families, conditions while in a medical hold status, the need to 
streamline and make more transparent the medical and physical 
evaluation board processes, policies that facilitate the return to duty 
for soldiers who are able, and a policy governing the smooth transition 
of separating service members from the Department of Defense to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs which focuses on the needs of patients.
  This legislation would improve health care benefits to severely 
wounded soldiers by extending their health care benefits as if the 
member were on active duty for a period of up to 5 years. This approach 
ensures that our most severely wounded have as many health care options 
as possible, especially for treatment of traumatic brain injury and 
other long term serious conditions.
  This legislation authorizes additional funding for traumatic brain 
injury and post-traumatic stress disorder and requires the 
establishment of two centers of excellence for the prevention, research 
and treatment on these consequences of war. This legislation would also 
require DOD to develop a comprehensive plan for research, prevention 
and treatment of traumatic brain injury, which is long overdue in 
addressing the so-called signature injury of this war.
  The administration requested, and this bill would provide, additional 
authorities to the Department of Defense to hire health care 
professionals to care for our service members and their families. It 
would also require the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans 
Affairs to jointly develop an electronic health record that can easily 
be shared between the two departments.
  With respect to disability determinations for wounded warriors who 
leave military service, this legislation would require the Secretary of 
Defense to establish a special review board to independently review the 
findings and decisions of the Physical Evaluation Boards of the 
military departments since 2001, in cases in which the disability rates 
of 20 percent or less were awarded and members were not medically 
retired. We must act, in light of data showing that some members, 
particularly junior enlisted soldiers, may have unfairly been denied 
medical retirement. This legislation empowers the special board to 
correct military records and, if appropriate, restore to a wounded 
soldier a higher disability rating or retired status.
  The bill would also end the requirement that disabled service members 
pay back severance pay if they obtain a higher disability rating from 
the VA, and increase the amount of severance pay that separating 
members receive.
  To address the need for fundamental change in the way that the DOD 
and VA disability evaluation systems are structured, a belief shared by 
many of my colleagues, this legislation would require the Secretary of 
Defense to immediately implement pilot projects to test new 
improvements to the disability evaluation system. Such pilot programs 
will help expedite implementation of needed changes to the disability 
evaluation system.
  This legislation would also require the Secretary of Defense to 
establish uniform standards for medical treatment facilities and 
medical residential housing facilities, and a DOD investment strategy 
to remedy all medical facility deficiencies. It would also require the 
Secretary of Defense to study the feasibility of accelerated 
construction of state-of-the art facilities and consolidation of 
patient care services at the new National Medical Center at Bethesda. 
As a condition for the closure of Walter Reed Army Medical Center, it 
would require the Secretary of Defense to certify that health care 
services would remain available in their totality until the new 
facility and staff are in place to effect a seamless transfer of care. 
The current facilities at Walter Reed have served the Nation well, but 
we can and must do better.
  This legislation is a start on the journey to restore trust for 
America's wounded and her veterans, but it is not our final 
destination. It will take time to understand fully the complexities of 
the DOD and VA disability systems and to reconcile them in the best 
interests of our wounded veterans.
  We must also look to the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve 
access to care for wounded veterans and improvements in its handling of 
veterans claims for disabilities. We must ensure that the VA maintains 
a robust medical infrastructure for quality health care, teaching and 
research, but one that also supports veterans beyond the limits of 
bricks and mortar in communities throughout the nation. I am developing 
legislation which would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
establish health care access standards for veterans with a service-
connected disability throughout the VA health care delivery system, 
and, similar to DOD's TRICARE system, when services cannot be provided 
by the VA, authorize that care to be purchased from civilian providers. 
Civilian health care specialists are eager to do their part for 
America's veterans. Given the strain on the veterans health system, and 
the limits to our resources, we should give them that chance, and make 
certain that our Nation's veterans get the care that they need, when 
they need it.
  There is no more important responsibility than to act on our moral 
obligation as a Nation to those who are willing to give their blood for 
its freedom. Let us continue to be guided by the words of President 
George Washington in 1789, who said, ``the willingness with which our 
young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, 
shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of 
earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.''
  I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Levin and me in a 
bipartisan effort to make a difference in the lives of our service 
members who have given so much in support of our Nation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. INOUYE (for himself and Mr. Stevens) (by request):
  S. 1609. A bill to provide the necessary authority to the Secretary 
of Commerce for the establishment and implementation of a regulatory 
system for offshore aquaculture in the United States Exclusive Economic 
Zone, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
and Transportation.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, by request of 
the administration, the National Offshore Aquaculture Act of 2007. I am 
joined by Senator Stevens, the vice chairman of the Senate Commerce, 
Science and Transportation Committee. This bill would authorize the 
Secretary of Commerce to establish and implement a regulatory system 
for offshore aquaculture in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. While 
Senator Stevens and I understand this is a top priority for the 
administration, we continue to have concerns with the administration's 
bill as drafted, particularly with regard to the need for clearer 
safeguards for the environment and native fish stocks. Therefore, we 
are also filing several amendments that would address these concerns. 
The three amendments that I am filing, and which Senator Stevens is 
cosponsoring, would strengthen requirements to address potential 
environmental risks from offshore aquaculture, including to native 
species; require a more comprehensive research and development program 
for offshore aquaculture; and ensure that offshore aquaculture permits 
could only be provided to citizens, residents, or business entities of 
the United States. Senator Stevens is also filing an amendment, which I 
am cosponsoring, that would prohibit offshore aquaculture of finfish in 
the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of Alaska. I intend to 
introduce later this year a comprehensive bill that would address 
additional concerns with the administration's proposed legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the 
Record.

[[Page S7646]]

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

                                S. 1609

       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 Offshore 
     Aquaculture Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is the policy of the United States--
       (A) to support an offshore aquaculture industry that will 
     produce food and other valuable products, protect wild stocks 
     and the quality of marine ecosystems, and be compatible with 
     other uses of the Exclusive Economic Zone;
       (B) to encourage the development of environmentally 
     responsible offshore aquaculture by authorizing offshore 
     aquaculture operations and research;
       (C) to establish a permitting process for offshore 
     aquaculture that encourages private investment in aquaculture 
     operations and research, provides opportunity for public 
     comment, and addresses the potential risks to and impacts 
     (including cumulative impacts) on marine ecosystems, human 
     health and safety, other ocean uses, and coastal communities 
     from offshore aquaculture; and
       (D) to promote, through public-private partnerships, 
     research and development in marine aquaculture science, 
     technology, and related social, economic, legal, and 
     environmental management disciplines that will enable marine 
     aquaculture operations to achieve operational objectives 
     while protecting marine ecosystem quality.
       (2) Offshore aquaculture activities within the Exclusive 
     Economic Zone of the United States constitute activities with 
     respect to which the United States has proclaimed sovereign 
     rights and jurisdiction under Presidential Proclamation 5030 
     of March 10, 1983.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
        (1) Coastal state.--The term ``coastal State'' means--
       (A) a State in, or bordering on, the Atlantic, Pacific, or 
     Arctic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, or Long Island Sound; and
       (B) Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Commonwealth 
     of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Trust Territories of the 
     Pacific Islands, and American Samoa.
       (2) Coastline.--The term ``coastline'' means the line of 
     ordinary low water along that portion of the coast that is in 
     direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the 
     seaward limit of inland waters.
       (3) Exclusive economic zone.--The term ``Exclusive Economic 
     Zone'' means, unless otherwise specified by the President in 
     the public interest in a writing published in the Federal 
     Register, a zone, the outer boundary of which is 200 nautical 
     miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the 
     territorial sea is measured, except as established by a 
     maritime boundary treaty in force, or being provisionally 
     applied by the United States or, in the absence of such a 
     treaty where the distance between the United States and 
     another nation is less than 400 nautical miles, a line 
     equidistant between the United States and the other nation. 
     Without affecting any Presidential Proclamation with regard 
     to the establishment of the United States territorial sea or 
     Exclusive Economic Zone, the inner boundary of that zone is--
       (A) a line coterminous with the seaward boundary (as 
     defined in section 4 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1312)) of each of the several coastal States,;
       (B) a line 3 marine leagues from the coastline of the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;
       (C) a line 3 geographical miles from the coastlines of 
     American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and Guam;
       (D) for the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands--
       (i) its coastline, until such time as the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands is granted authority by the 
     United States to regulate all fishing to a line seaward of 
     its coastline, and
       (ii) upon the United States' grant of such authority, the 
     line established by such grant of authority; and
       (E) for any possession of the United States not described 
     in subparagraph (B), (C), or (D), the coastline of such 
     possession.

     Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as diminishing 
     the authority of the Department of Defense, the Department of 
     the Interior, or any other Federal department or agency.
       (4) Lessee.--The term ``lessee'' means any party to a 
     lease, right-of-use and easement, or right-of-way, or an 
     approved assignment thereof, issued pursuant to the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.).
       (5) Marine species.--The term ``marine species'' means 
     finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, marine algae, and all other 
     forms of marine life other than marine mammals and birds.
       (6) Offshore aquaculture.--The term ``offshore 
     aquaculture'' means all activities, including the operation 
     of offshore aquaculture facilities, involved in the 
     propagation and rearing, or attempted propagation and 
     rearing, of marine species in the United States Exclusive 
     Economic Zone.
       (7) Offshore aquaculture facility.--The term ``offshore 
     aquaculture facility'' means--
       (A) an installation or structure used, in whole or in part, 
     for offshore aquaculture; or
       (B) an area of the seabed or the subsoil used for offshore 
     aquaculture of living organisms belonging to sedentary 
     species.
       (8) Offshore aquaculture permit.--The term ``offshore 
     aquaculture permit'' means an authorization issued under 
     section 4(b) to raise specified marine species in a specific 
     offshore aquaculture facility within a specified area of the 
     Exclusive Economic Zone.
       (9) Person.--The term ``person'' means any individual 
     (whether or not a citizen or national of the United States), 
     any corporation, partnership, association, or other non-
     governmental entity (whether or not organized or existing 
     under the laws of any State), and State, local or tribal 
     government or entity thereof, and, except as otherwise 
     specified by the President in writing, the Federal Government 
     or an entity thereof, and, to the extent specified by the 
     President in writing, a foreign government, or an entity 
     thereof.
       (10) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Commerce.

     SEC. 4. OFFSHORE AQUACULTURE PERMITS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) The Secretary shall establish, through rulemaking, in 
     consultation as appropriate with other relevant Federal 
     agencies, coastal States, and regional fishery management 
     councils established under section 302 of the Magnuson-
     Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1852), a process to make areas of the Exclusive Economic Zone 
     available to eligible persons for the development and 
     operation of offshore aquaculture facilities. The process 
     shall include--
       (A) procedures and criteria necessary to issue and modify 
     permits under this Act;
       (B) procedures to coordinate the offshore aquaculture 
     permitting process, and related siting, operations, 
     environmental protection, monitoring, enforcement, research, 
     and economic and social activities, with similar activities 
     administered by other Federal agencies and coastal States;
       (C) consideration of the potential environmental, social, 
     economic, and cultural impacts of offshore aquaculture and 
     inclusion, where appropriate, of permit conditions to address 
     negative impacts;
       (D) public notice and opportunity for public comment prior 
     to issuance of offshore aquaculture permits;
       (E) procedures to monitor and evaluate compliance with the 
     provisions of offshore aquaculture permits, including the 
     collection of biological, chemical and physical oceanographic 
     data, and social, production, and economic data; and
       (F) procedures for transferring permits from the original 
     permit holder to a person that--
       (i) meets the eligibility criteria in subsection (b)(2)(A); 
     and
       (ii) satisfies the requirements for bonds or other 
     guarantees prescribed under subsection (c)(3).
       (2) The Secretary shall prepare an analysis under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) with respect to the process for issuing permits.
       (3) The Secretary shall periodically review the procedures 
     and criteria for issuance of offshore aquaculture permits and 
     modify them as appropriate, in consultation as appropriate 
     with other Federal agencies, the coastal States, and regional 
     fishery management councils, based on the best available 
     science.
       (4) The Secretary shall consult as appropriate with other 
     Federal agencies and coastal States to identify the 
     environmental requirements that apply to offshore aquaculture 
     under existing laws and regulations. The Secretary shall 
     establish through rulemaking, in consultation with 
     appropriate Federal agencies, coastal States, and regional 
     fishery management councils established under section 302 of 
     the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 1852), additional environmental requirements to 
     address environmental risks and impacts associated with 
     offshore aquaculture, to the extent necessary. The 
     environmental requirements shall address, at a minimum--
       (A) risks to and impacts on natural fish stocks and 
     fisheries, including safeguards needed to conserve genetic 
     resources, to prevent or minimize the transmission of disease 
     or parasites to wild stocks, and to prevent the escape of 
     marine species that may cause significant environmental harm;
       (B) risks to and impacts on marine ecosystems; biological, 
     chemical and physical features of water quality and habitat; 
     marine species, marine mammals and birds;
       (C) cumulative effects of the aquaculture operation and 
     other aquaculture operations in the vicinity of the proposed 
     site;
       (D) environmental monitoring, data archiving, and reporting 
     by the permit holder;
       (E) requirements that marine species propagated and reared 
     through offshore aquaculture be species native to the 
     geographic region unless a scientific risk analysis shows 
     that the risk of harm to the marine environment from the 
     offshore culture of non-indigenous or genetically modified 
     marine species is negligible or can be effectively mitigated; 
     and
       (F) maintaining record systems to track inventory and 
     movement of fish or other marine species in the offshore 
     aquaculture facility or harvested from such facility, and, if 
     necessary, tagging, marking, or otherwise identifying fish or 
     other marine species in the offshore aquaculture facility or 
     harvested from such facility.

[[Page S7647]]

       (5) The Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal 
     agencies, shall--
       (A) collect information needed to evaluate the suitability 
     of sites for offshore aquaculture; and
       (B) monitor the effects of offshore aquaculture on marine 
     ecosystems and implement such measures as may be necessary to 
     protect the environment, including temporary or permanent 
     relocation of offshore aquaculture sites, a moratorium on 
     additional sites within a prescribed area, and other 
     appropriate measures as determined by the Secretary.
       (b) Permits.--Subject to the provisions of subsection (e), 
     the Secretary may issue offshore aquaculture permits under 
     such terms and conditions as the Secretary shall prescribe. 
     Permits issued under this Act shall authorize the permit 
     holder to conduct offshore aquaculture consistent with the 
     provisions of this Act, regulations issued under this Act, 
     any specific terms, conditions and restrictions applied to 
     the permit by the Secretary, and other applicable law.
       (1) Procedure for issuance of permits.--
       (A) An applicant for an offshore aquaculture permit shall 
     submit an application to the Secretary specifying the 
     proposed location and type of operation, the marine species 
     to be propagated or reared, or both, at the offshore 
     aquaculture facility, and other design, construction, and 
     operational information, as specified by regulation.
       (B) Within 120 days after determining that a permit 
     application is complete and has satisfied all applicable 
     statutory and regulatory requirements, as specified by 
     regulation, the Secretary shall issue or deny the permit. If 
     the Secretary is unable to issue or deny a permit within this 
     time period, the Secretary shall provide written notice to 
     the applicant indicating the reasons for the delay and 
     establishing a reasonable timeline for issuing or denying the 
     permit.
       (2) Permit conditions.--
       (A) An offshore aquaculture permit holder shall--
       (i) be a resident of the United States;
       (ii) be a corporation, partnership, or other entity 
     organized and existing under the laws of a State or the 
     United States; or
       (iii) if the holder does not meet the requirements of 
     clause (i) or (ii), to the extent required by the Secretary 
     by regulation after coordination with the Secretary of State, 
     waive any immunity, and consent to the jurisdiction of the 
     United States and its courts, for matters arising in relation 
     to such permit, and appoint and maintain agents within the 
     United States who are authorized to receive and respond to 
     any legal process issued in the United States with respect to 
     such permit holder.
       (B) Subject to the provisions of subsection (e), the 
     Secretary shall establish the terms, conditions, and 
     restrictions that apply to offshore aquaculture permits, and 
     shall specify in the permits the duration, size, and location 
     of the offshore aquaculture facility.
       (C) Except for projects involving pilot-scale testing or 
     farm-scale research on aquaculture science and technologies 
     and offshore aquaculture permits requiring concurrence of the 
     Secretary of the Interior under subsection (e)(1), the permit 
     shall have a duration of 20 years, renewable thereafter at 
     the discretion of the Secretary in up to 20-year increments. 
     The duration of permits requiring concurrence of the 
     Secretary of the Interior under subsection (e)(1) shall be 
     developed in consultation as appropriate with the Secretary 
     of the Interior, except that any such permit shall expire no 
     later than the date that the lessee, or the lessee's 
     operator, submits to the Secretary of the Interior a final 
     application for the decommissioning and removal of an 
     existing facility upon which an offshore aquaculture facility 
     is located.
       (D) At the expiration or termination of an offshore 
     aquaculture permit for any reason, the permit holder shall 
     remove all structures, gear, and other property from the 
     site, and take other measures to restore the site as may be 
     prescribed by the Secretary.
       (E) The Secretary may revoke a permit for failure to begin 
     offshore aquaculture operations within a reasonable period of 
     time, or prolonged interruption of offshore aquaculture 
     operations.
       (3) National interest determination.--If the Secretary 
     determines that issuance of a permit is not in the national 
     interest, the Secretary may decline to issue such a permit or 
     may impose such conditions as necessary to address such 
     concerns.
       (c) Fees and Other Payments.--
       (1) The Secretary may establish, through regulations, 
     application fees and annual permit fees. Such fees shall be 
     deposited as offsetting collections in the Operations, 
     Research, and Facilities account. Fees may be collected and 
     made available only to the extent provided in advance in 
     appropriation Acts.
       (2) The Secretary may reduce or waive applicable fees or 
     other payments established under this section for facilities 
     used primarily for research.
       (3) The Secretary shall require the permit holder to post a 
     bond or other form of financial guarantee, in an amount to be 
     determined by the Secretary as sufficient to cover any unpaid 
     fees, the cost of removing an offshore aquaculture facility 
     at the expiration or termination of an offshore aquaculture 
     permit, and other financial risks as identified by the 
     Secretary.
       (d) Compatibility With Other Uses.--
       (1) The Secretary shall consult as appropriate with other 
     Federal agencies, coastal States, and regional fishery 
     management councils to ensure that offshore aquaculture for 
     which a permit is issued under this section is compatible 
     with the use of the Exclusive Economic Zone for navigation, 
     fishing, resource protection, recreation, national defense 
     (including military readiness), mineral exploration and 
     development, and other activities.
       (2) The Secretary shall not authorize permits for new 
     offshore aquaculture facilities within 12 miles of the 
     coastline of a coastal State if that coastal State has 
     submitted a written notice to the Secretary that the coastal 
     State opposes such activities. This paragraph does not apply 
     to permit applications received by the Secretary prior to the 
     date the notice is received from a coastal State. A coastal 
     State that transmits such a notice to the Secretary may 
     revoke that notice in writing at any time.
       (3) Federal agencies implementing this Act, persons subject 
     to this Act, and coastal States seeking to review permit 
     applications under this Act shall comply with the applicable 
     provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 
     U.S.C. 1451 et seq.) and regulations promulgated thereunder.
       (4) Notwithstanding the definition of the term ``fishing'' 
     in section 3(16) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 
     and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1802(16)), the conduct of 
     offshore aquaculture in accordance with permits issued under 
     this Act shall not be considered ``fishing'' for purposes of 
     that Act. The Secretary shall ensure, to the extent 
     practicable, that offshore aquaculture does not interfere 
     with conservation and management measures promulgated under 
     the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
       (5) The Secretary may promulgate regulations that the 
     Secretary finds to be reasonable and necessary to protect 
     offshore aquaculture facilities, and, where appropriate, 
     shall request that the Secretary of the department in which 
     the Coast Guard is operating establish navigational safety 
     zones around such facilities. In addition, in the case of any 
     offshore aquaculture facility described in subsection (e)(1), 
     the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is 
     operating shall consult with the Secretary of the Interior 
     before designating such a zone.
       (6) After consultation with the Secretary, the Secretary of 
     State, and the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating may 
     designate a zone of appropriate size around and including any 
     offshore aquaculture facility for the purpose of navigational 
     safety. In such a zone, no installations, structures, or uses 
     will be allowed that are incompatible with the operation of 
     the offshore aquaculture facility. The Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating may define, 
     by rulemaking, activities that are allowed within such a 
     zone.
       (7)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), if the Secretary, after 
     consultation with Federal agencies as appropriate and after 
     affording the permit holder notice and an opportunity to be 
     heard, determines that suspension, modification, or 
     revocation of a permit is in the national interest, the 
     Secretary may suspend, modify, or revoke such permit.
       (B) If the Secretary determines that an emergency exists 
     that poses a risk to the safety of humans, to the marine 
     environment, to marine species, or to the security of the 
     United States and that requires suspension, modification, or 
     revocation of a permit, the Secretary may suspend, modify, or 
     revoke the permit for such time as the Secretary may 
     determine necessary to meet the emergency. The Secretary 
     shall afford the permit holder a prompt post-suspension or 
     post-modification opportunity to be heard regarding the 
     suspension, modification, or revocation.
       (8) Permits issued under this Act do not supersede or 
     substitute for any other authorization required under 
     applicable Federal or State law or regulation.
       (e) Actions Affecting the Outer Continental Shelf.--
       (1) Concurrence of secretary of interior required.--The 
     Secretary shall obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of 
     the Interior for permits for offshore aquaculture facilities 
     located--
       (A) on leases, right-of-use and easements, or rights of way 
     authorized or permitted under the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), or
       (B) within 1 mile of any other facility permitted or for 
     which a plan has been approved under that Act.
       (2) Prior consent required.-- Offshore aquaculture may not 
     be located on facilities described in paragraph (1)(A) 
     without the prior consent of the lessee, its designated 
     operator, and the owner of the facility.
       (3) Review for lease, etc., compliance.--The Secretary of 
     the Interior shall review and approve any agreement between a 
     lessee, designated operator, and owner of a facility 
     described in paragraph (1) and a prospective aquaculture 
     operator to ensure that it is consistent with the Federal 
     lease terms, Department of the Interior regulations, and the 
     Secretary of the Interior's role in the protection of the 
     marine environment, property, or human life or health. An 
     agreement under this subsection shall be part of the 
     information reviewed pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management 
     Act review process described in paragraph (4) and shall not 
     be subject to a separate Coastal Zone Management Act review.
       (4) Coordinated coastal zone management act review.--

[[Page S7648]]

       (A) If the applicant for an offshore aquaculture facility 
     that will utilize a facility described in paragraph (1) is 
     required to submit to a coastal State a consistency 
     certification for its aquaculture application under section 
     307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1456(c)(3)(A)), the coastal State's review under the Coastal 
     Zone Management Act and corresponding Federal regulations 
     shall also include any modification to a lessee's approved 
     plan or other document for which a consistency certification 
     would otherwise be required under applicable Federal 
     regulations, including changes to its plan for 
     decommissioning any facilities, resulting from or necessary 
     for the issuance of the offshore aquaculture permit, if 
     information related to such modifications or changes is 
     received by the coastal State at the time the coastal State 
     receives the offshore aquaculture permit applicant's 
     consistency certification. If the information related to such 
     modifications or changes is received by the coastal State at 
     the time the coastal State receives the offshore aquaculture 
     permit applicant's consistency certification, a lessee is not 
     required to submit a separate consistency certification for 
     any such modification or change under section 307(c)(3)(B) of 
     the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(B)) and 
     the coastal State's concurrence or objection, or presumed 
     concurrence, under section 307(c)(3)(A) of that Act (16 
     U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(A)) in a consistency determination for the 
     offshore aquaculture permit, shall apply to both the offshore 
     aquaculture permit and to any related modifications or 
     changes to a lessee's plan approved under the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act.
       (B) If a coastal State is not authorized by section 
     307(c)(3)(A) of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 
     1456(c)(3)(A)) and corresponding Federal regulations to 
     review an offshore aquaculture application submitted under 
     this Act, then any modifications or changes to a lessee's 
     approved plan or other document requiring approval from the 
     Department of the Interior, shall be subject to coastal State 
     review pursuant to the requirements of section 307(c)(3)(B) 
     of the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)(3)(B)), 
     if a consistency certification for those modifications or 
     changes is required under applicable Federal regulations.
       (5) Joint and several liability.--For offshore aquaculture 
     located on facilities described in paragraph (1), the 
     aquaculture permit holder and all parties that are or were 
     lessees of the lease on which the facilities are located 
     during the term of the offshore aquaculture permit shall be 
     jointly and severally liable for the removal of any 
     construction or modifications related to aquaculture 
     operations if the aquaculture permit holder fails to do so 
     and bonds established under this Act for aquaculture 
     operations prove insufficient to cover those obligations. 
     This paragraph does not affect obligations to decommission 
     facilities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
       (6) Additional authority.--For aquaculture projects or 
     operations described in paragraph (1), the Secretary of the 
     Interior may--
       (A) promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary 
     and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this 
     subsection;
       (B) require and enforce such additional terms or conditions 
     as the Secretary of the Interior deems necessary to protect 
     the marine environment, property, or human life or health to 
     ensure the compatibility of aquaculture operations with all 
     activities for which permits have been issued under the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act;
       (C) issue orders to the offshore aquaculture permit holder 
     to take any action the Secretary of the Interior deems 
     necessary to ensure safe operations on the facility to 
     protect the marine environment, property, or human life or 
     health. Failure to comply with the Secretary of the 
     Interior's orders will be deemed to constitute a violation of 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; and
       (D) enforce all requirements contained in such regulations, 
     lease terms and conditions and orders pursuant to the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act.

     SEC. 5. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.-- In consultation as appropriate with other 
     Federal agencies, the Secretary may establish and conduct an 
     integrated, multidisciplinary, scientific research and 
     development program to further marine aquaculture 
     technologies that are compatible with the protection of 
     marine ecosystems.
       (b) Partnerships.--The Secretary may conduct research and 
     development in partnership with offshore aquaculture permit 
     holders.
       (c) Reduction of wild fish as food.--The Secretary, in 
     collaboration with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall 
     conduct research to reduce the use of wild fish in 
     aquaculture feeds, including the substitution of seafood 
     processing wastes, cultured marine algae, and microbial 
     sources of nutrients important for human health and 
     nutrition, agricultural crops, and other products.

     SEC. 6. ADMINISTRATION.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall promulgate such 
     regulations as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the 
     provisions of this Act. The Secretary may at any time amend 
     such regulations, and such regulations shall, as of their 
     effective date, apply to all operations conducted pursuant to 
     permits issued under this Act, regardless of the date of the 
     issuance of such permit.
       (b) Contract, Etc., Authority.--The Secretary may enter 
     into and perform such contracts, leases, grants, or 
     cooperative agreements as may be necessary to carry out the 
     purposes of this Act and on such terms as the Administrator 
     of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deems 
     appropriate.
       (c) Use of Contributed Governmental Resources.-- For 
     purposes related to the enforcement of this Act, the 
     Secretary may use, with their consent and with or without 
     reimbursement, the land, services, equipment, personnel, and 
     facilities of any department, agency or instrumentality of 
     the United States, or of any State, local government, Indian 
     tribal government, Territory or possession, or of any 
     political subdivision thereof, or of any foreign government 
     or international organization.
       (d) Authority to Utilize Grant Funds.--
       (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary may 
     apply for, accept, and obligate research grant funding from 
     any Federal source operating competitive grant programs where 
     such funding furthers the purpose of this Act.
       (2) The Secretary may not apply for, accept, or obligate 
     any grant funding under paragraph (1) for which the granting 
     agency lacks authority to grant funds to Federal agencies, or 
     for any purpose or subject to conditions that are prohibited 
     by law or regulation.
       (3) Appropriated funds may be used to satisfy a requirement 
     to match grant funds with recipient agency funds, except that 
     no grant may be accepted that requires a commitment in 
     advance of appropriations.
       (4) Funds received from grants shall be deposited in the 
     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration account that 
     serves to accomplish the purpose for which the grant was 
     awarded.
       (e) Reservation of Authority.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed to displace, supersede, or limit the jurisdiction, 
     responsibilities, or rights of any Federal or State agency, 
     or Indian Tribe or Alaska Native organization, under any 
     Federal law or treaty.
       (f) Application of Laws to Facilities in the EEZ.--The 
     Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States shall 
     apply to an offshore aquaculture facility located in the 
     Exclusive Economic Zone for which a permit has been issued or 
     is required under this Act and to activities in the Exclusive 
     Economic Zone connected, associated, or potentially 
     interfering with the use or operation of such facility, in 
     the same manner as if such facility were an area of exclusive 
     Federal jurisdiction located within a State. Nothing in this 
     Act shall be construed to relieve, exempt, or immunize any 
     person from any other requirement imposed by an applicable 
     Federal law, regulation, or treaty. Nothing in this Act shall 
     be construed to confer citizenship to a person by birth or 
     through naturalization or to entitle a person to avail 
     himself of any law pertaining to immigration, naturalization, 
     or nationality.
       (g) Application of Certain State Laws.--The law of the 
     nearest adjacent coastal State, now in effect or hereafter 
     adopted, amended, or repealed, is declared to be the law of 
     the United States, and shall apply to any offshore 
     aquaculture facility for which a permit has been issued 
     pursuant to this Act, to the extent applicable and not 
     inconsistent with any provision or regulation under this Act 
     or other Federal laws and regulations now in effect or 
     hereafter adopted, amended, or repealed. All such applicable 
     laws shall be administered and enforced by the appropriate 
     officers and courts of the United States. For purposes of 
     this subsection, the nearest adjacent coastal State shall be 
     that State whose seaward boundaries, if extended beyond 3 
     nautical miles, would encompass the site of the offshore 
     aquaculture facility. State taxation laws shall not apply to 
     offshore aquaculture facilities in the Exclusive Economic 
     Zone.

     SEC. 7. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     $4,052,000 in fiscal year 2008 and thereafter such sums as 
     may be necessary for purposes of carrying out the provisions 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 8. UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES.

       It is unlawful for any person--
        (1) to falsify any information required to be reported, 
     communicated, or recorded pursuant to this Act or any 
     regulation or permit issued under this Act, or to fail to 
     submit in a timely fashion any required information, or to 
     fail to report to the Secretary immediately any change in 
     circumstances that has the effect of rendering any such 
     information false, incomplete, or misleading;
       (2) to engage in offshore aquaculture within the Exclusive 
     Economic Zone of the United States or operate an offshore 
     aquaculture facility within the Exclusive Economic Zone of 
     the United States, except pursuant to a valid permit issued 
     under this Act;
       (3) to refuse to permit an authorized officer to conduct 
     any lawful search or lawful inspection in connection with the 
     enforcement of this Act or any regulation or permit issued 
     under this Act;
       (4) to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, 
     intimidate, or interfere with an authorized officer in the 
     conduct of any search or inspection in connection with the 
     enforcement of this Act or any regulation or permit issued 
     under this Act;
       (5) to resist a lawful arrest or detention for any act 
     prohibited by this section;
       (6) to interfere with, delay, or prevent, by any means, the 
     apprehension, arrest, or detection of another person, knowing 
     that such

[[Page S7649]]

     person has committed any act prohibited by this section;
       (7) to import, export, sell, receive, acquire or purchase 
     in interstate or foreign commerce any marine species in 
     violation of this Act or any regulation or permit issued 
     under this Act;
       (8) upon the expiration or termination of any aquaculture 
     permit for any reason, to fail to remove all structures, 
     gear, and other property from the site, or take other 
     measures, as prescribed by the Secretary, to restore the 
     site;
       (9) to violate any provision of this Act, any regulation 
     promulgated under this Act, or any term or condition of any 
     permit issued under this Act; or
       (10) to attempt to commit any act described in paragraph 
     (1), (2), (7), (8) or (9).

     SEC. 9. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.

       (a) Duties of Secretaries.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) 
     and (D) of section 4(e)(6), this Act shall be enforced by the 
     Secretary and the Secretary of the department in which the 
     Coast Guard is operating.
       (b) Powers of Enforcement.--
       (1) Any officer who is authorized pursuant to subsection 
     (a) of this section by the Secretary or the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating to enforce 
     the provisions of this Act may--
       (A) with or without a warrant or other process--
       (i) arrest any person, if the officer has reasonable cause 
     to believe that such person has committed or is committing an 
     act prohibited by section 8 of this Act;
       (ii) search or inspect any offshore aquaculture facility 
     and any related land-based facility;
       (iii) seize any offshore aquaculture facility (together 
     with its equipment, records, furniture, appurtenances, 
     stores, and cargo), and any vessel or vehicle, used or 
     employed in aid of, or with respect to which it reasonably 
     appears that such offshore aquaculture facility was used or 
     employed in aid of, the violation of any provision of this 
     Act or any regulation or permit issued under this Act;
       (iv) seize any marine species (wherever found) retained, in 
     any manner, in connection with or as a result of the 
     commission of any act prohibited by section 8 of this Act;
       (v) seize any evidence related to any violation of any 
     provision of this Act or any regulation or permit issued 
     under this Act;
       (B) execute any warrant or other process issued by any 
     court of competent jurisdiction; and
       (C) exercise any other lawful authority.
       (2) Any officer who is authorized pursuant to subsection 
     (a) of this section by the Secretary or the Secretary of the 
     department in which the Coast Guard is operating to enforce 
     the provisions of this Act may make an arrest without a 
     warrant for (A) an offense against the United States 
     committed in his presence, or (B) for a felony cognizable 
     under the laws of the United States, if he has reasonable 
     grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has 
     committed or is committing a felony. Any such authorized 
     person may execute and serve a subpoena, arrest warrant or 
     search warrant issued in accordance with Rule 41 of the 
     Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or other warrant of 
     civil or criminal process issued by any officer or court of 
     competent jurisdiction for enforcement of the Act, or any 
     regulation or permit issued under this Act.
       (c) Issuance of Citations.--If any authorized officer finds 
     that a person is engaging in or has engaged in offshore 
     aquaculture in violation of any provision of this Act, such 
     officer may issue a citation to that person.
       (d) Liability for Costs.--Any person who violates this Act, 
     or a regulation or permit issued under this Act, shall be 
     liable for the cost incurred in storage, care, and 
     maintenance of any marine species or other property seized in 
     connection with the violation.

     SEC. 10. CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AND PERMIT SANCTIONS.

       (a) Civil Administrative Penalties.--
       (1) Any person who is found by the Secretary, after notice 
     and opportunity for a hearing in accordance with section 554 
     of title 5, United States Code, to have violated this Act, or 
     a regulation or permit issued under this Act, shall be liable 
     to the United States for a civil penalty. The amount of the 
     civil penalty under this paragraph shall not exceed $200,000 
     for each violation. Each day of a continuing violation shall 
     constitute a separate violation.
       (2) Compromise or other action by the secretary.--The 
     Secretary may compromise, modify, or remit, with or without 
     conditions, any civil administrative penalty which is or may 
     be imposed under this section and that has not been referred 
     to the Attorney General for further enforcement action.
       (b) Civil Judicial Penalties.--Any person who violates any 
     provision of this Act, or any regulation or permit issued 
     thereunder, shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 
     $250,000 for each such violation. Each day of a continuing 
     violation shall constitute a separate violation. The Attorney 
     General, upon the request of the Secretary, may commence a 
     civil action in an appropriate district court of the United 
     States, and such court shall have jurisdiction to award civil 
     penalties and such other relief as justice may require. In 
     determining the amount of a civil penalty, the court shall 
     take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and 
     gravity of the prohibited acts committed and, with respect to 
     the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior 
     violations and such other matters as justice may require. In 
     imposing such penalty, the district court may also consider 
     information related to the ability of the violator to pay.
       (c) Permit Sanctions.--
       (1) In any case in which--
       (A) an offshore aquaculture facility has been used in the 
     commission of an act prohibited under section 8 of this Act;
       (B) the owner or operator of an offshore aquaculture 
     facility or any other person who has been issued or has 
     applied for a permit under section 4 of this Act has acted in 
     violation of section 8 of this Act; or
       (C) any amount in settlement of a civil forfeiture imposed 
     on an offshore aquaculture facility or other property, or any 
     civil penalty or criminal fine imposed under this Act or 
     imposed on any other person who has been issued or has 
     applied for a permit under any fishery resource statute 
     enforced by the Secretary, has not been paid and is overdue, 
     the Secretary may--
       (i) revoke any permit issued with respect to such offshore 
     aquaculture facility or applied for by such a person under 
     this Act, with or without prejudice to the issuance of 
     subsequent permits;
       (ii) suspend such permit for a period of time considered by 
     the Secretary to be appropriate;
       (iii) deny such permit; or
       (iv) impose additional conditions and restrictions on such 
     permit.
       (2) In imposing a sanction under this subsection, the 
     Secretary shall take into account--
       (A) the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the 
     prohibited acts for which the sanction is imposed; and
       (B) with respect to the violator, the degree of 
     culpability, any history of prior violations, and such other 
     matters as justice may require.
       (3) Transfer of ownership of an offshore aquaculture 
     facility, by sale or otherwise, shall not extinguish any 
     permit sanction that is in effect or is pending at the time 
     of transfer of ownership. Before executing the transfer of 
     ownership of an offshore aquaculture facility, by sale or 
     otherwise, the owner shall disclose in writing to the 
     prospective transferee the existence of any permit sanction 
     that will be in effect or pending with respect to the 
     offshore aquaculture facility at the time of the transfer. 
     The Secretary may waive or compromise a sanction in the case 
     of a transfer pursuant to court order.
       (4) In the case of any permit that is suspended under this 
     subsection for nonpayment of a civil penalty or criminal 
     fine, the Secretary shall reinstate the permit upon payment 
     of the penalty or fine and interest thereon at the prevailing 
     rate.
       (5) No sanctions shall be imposed under this subsection 
     unless there has been prior opportunity for a hearing on the 
     facts underlying the violation for which the sanction is 
     imposed, either in conjunction with a civil penalty 
     proceeding under this section or otherwise.
       (d) Injunctive Relief.--Upon the request of the Secretary, 
     the Attorney General of the United States may commence a 
     civil action for appropriate relief, including a permanent or 
     temporary injunction, for any violation of any provision of 
     this Act, or regulation or permit issued under this Act.
       (e) Hearing.--For the purposes of conducting any 
     investigation or hearing under this section or any other 
     statute administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
     Administration which is determined on the record in 
     accordance with the procedures provided for under section 554 
     of title 5, United States Code, the Secretary may issue 
     subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and 
     the production of relevant papers, books, and documents, and 
     may administer oaths. Witnesses summoned shall be paid the 
     same fees and mileage that are paid to witnesses in the 
     courts of the United States. In case of contempt or refusal 
     to obey a subpoena served upon any person pursuant to this 
     subsection, the district court of the United States for any 
     district in which such person is found, resides, or transacts 
     business, upon application by the United States and after 
     notice to such person, shall have jurisdiction to issue an 
     order requiring such person to appear and give testimony 
     before the Secretary or to appear and produce documents 
     before the Secretary, or both, and any failure to obey such 
     order of the court may be punished by such court as a 
     contempt thereof. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to 
     grant jurisdiction to a district court to entertain an 
     application for an order to enforce a subpoena issued by the 
     Secretary of Commerce to the Federal Government or any entity 
     thereof.
       (f) Jurisdiction.--The United States district courts shall 
     have original jurisdiction of any action under this section 
     arising out of or in connection with the construction or 
     operation of aquaculture facilities, and proceedings with 
     respect to any such action may be instituted in the judicial 
     district in which any defendant resides or may be found, or 
     in the judicial district of the adjacent coastal State 
     nearest the place where the cause of action arose. For the 
     purpose of this section, American Samoa shall be included 
     within the judicial district of the District Court of the 
     United States for the District of Hawaii. Each violation 
     shall be a separate offense and the offense shall be deemed 
     to have been committed not only in the district where the 
     violation first occurred, but

[[Page S7650]]

     also in any other district as authorized by law.
       (g) Collection.--If any person fails to pay an assessment 
     of a civil penalty after it has become a final and 
     unappealable order, or after the appropriate court has 
     entered final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the matter 
     may be referred to the Attorney General, who may recover the 
     amount (plus interest at currently prevailing rates from the 
     date of the final order). In such action the validity, amount 
     and appropriateness of the final order imposing the civil 
     penalty shall not be subject to review. Any person who fails 
     to pay, on a timely basis, the amount of an assessment of a 
     civil penalty shall be required to pay, in addition to such 
     amount and interest, attorney's fees and costs for collection 
     proceedings and a quarterly nonpayment penalty for each 
     quarter during which such failure to pay persists. Such 
     nonpayment penalty shall be in an amount equal to 20 percent 
     of the aggregate amount of such persons penalties and 
     nonpayment penalties which are unpaid as of the beginning of 
     such quarter.
       (h) Nationwide Service of Process.--In any action by the 
     United States under this Act, process may be served in any 
     district where the defendant is found, resides, transacts 
     business or has appointed an agent for the service of 
     process, and for civil cases may also be served in a place 
     not within the United States in accordance with Rule 4 of the 
     Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

     SEC. 11. CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

       (a) In General.--Any person (other than a foreign 
     government or any entity of such government) who knowingly 
     commits an act prohibited by subsection (c), (d), (e), or (f) 
     of section 8, shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years 
     or shall be fined not more than $500,000 for individuals or 
     $1,000,000 for an organization, or both; except that if in 
     the commission of any such offense the individual uses a 
     dangerous weapon, engages in conduct that causes bodily 
     injury to any officer authorized to enforce the provisions of 
     this Act, or places any such officer in fear of imminent 
     bodily injury, the maximum term of imprisonment is not more 
     than 10 years.
       (b) Other Offenses.--Any person (other than a foreign 
     government or any entity of such government) who knowingly 
     violates any provision of section 8 other than subsection 
     (c), (d), (e) or (f), any provision of any regulation 
     promulgated pursuant to this Act, or any permit issued under 
     this Act, shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or 
     shall be fined not more than $500,000 for an individual or 
     $1,000,000 for an organization, or both.
       (c) Jurisdiction of District Courts.--The United States 
     district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any 
     action arising under this section out of or in connection 
     with the construction or operation of aquaculture facilities, 
     and proceedings with respect to any such action may be 
     instituted in the judicial district in which any defendant 
     resides or may be found. For the purpose of this section, 
     American Samoa shall be included within the judicial district 
     of the District Court of the United States for the District 
     of Hawaii. Each violation shall be a separate offense and the 
     offense shall be deemed to have been committed not only in 
     the district where the violation first occurred, but also in 
     any other district as authorized under law.

     SEC. 12. FORFEITURES.

       (a) Criminal Forfeiture.--A person who is convicted of an 
     offense under section 11 of this Act shall forfeit to the 
     United States--
       (1) any property, real or personal, constituting or 
     traceable to the gross proceeds obtained, or retained, as a 
     result of the offense including, without limitation, any 
     marine species (or the fair market value thereof) taken or 
     retained in connection with or as a result of the offense; 
     and
       (2) any property, real or personal, used or intended to be 
     used to commit or to facilitate the commission of the 
     offense, including, without limitation, any offshore 
     aquaculture facility or vessel, including its structure, 
     equipment, furniture, appurtenances, stores, and cargo, and 
     any vehicle or aircraft.

     Pursuant to section 2461(c) of title 28, United States Code, 
     the provisions of section 413 of the Controlled Substances 
     Act (21 U.S.C. 853), other than subsection (d), shall apply 
     to criminal forfeitures under this section.
       (b) Civil Forfeiture.--The following shall be subject to 
     forfeiture to the United States and no property right shall 
     exist in them:
       (1) Any property, real or personal, constituting or 
     traceable to the gross proceeds obtained, or retained, as a 
     result of a violation of any provision of section 8 or 
     section 4(b)(2)(D) of this Act, including, without 
     limitation, any marine species (or the fair market value 
     thereof) taken or retained in connection with or as a result 
     of the violation.
       (2) Any property, real or personal, used or intended to be 
     used to commit or to facilitate the commission of any such 
     violation, including, without limitation, any offshore 
     aquaculture facility or vessel, including its structure, 
     equipment, furniture, appurtenances, stores, and cargo, and 
     any vehicle or aircraft.

     Civil forfeitures under this section shall be governed by the 
     procedures set forth in chapter 46 of title 18, United States 
     Code.
       (c) Rebuttable Presumption.--In any criminal or civil 
     forfeiture proceeding under this section, there is a 
     rebuttable presumption that all marine species found within 
     an offshore aquaculture facility and seized in connection 
     with a violation of section 8 of this Act were taken or 
     retained in violation of this Act.

     SEC. 13. SEVERABILITY AND JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Severability.--If any provision of this chapter or the 
     application thereof to any person or circumstances is held 
     invalid, the validity of the remainder of this chapter and of 
     the application of such provision to other persons and 
     circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
       (b) Judicial Review.--
       (1) In general.--Judicial review of any action taken by the 
     Secretary under this chapter shall be in accordance with 
     sections 701 through 706 of title 5, United States Code, 
     except that--
       (A) review of any final agency action of the Secretary 
     taken pursuant to subsection (a) or (c) of section 11 may be 
     had only by the filing of a complaint by an interested person 
     in the United States District Court for the appropriate 
     district; any such complaint must be filed within 30 days of 
     the date such final agency action is taken; and
       (B) review of all other final agency actions of the 
     Secretary under this chapter may be had only by the filing of 
     a petition for review by an interested person in the Circuit 
     Court of Appeals of the United States for the Federal 
     judicial district in which such person resides or transacts 
     business which is directly affected by the action taken; such 
     petition shall be filed within 120 days from the date such 
     final action is taken.
       (2) Limitation of judicial review.--Final agency action 
     with respect to which review could have been obtained under 
     paragraph (1)(B) of this subsection shall not be subject to 
     judicial review in any civil or criminal proceeding for 
     enforcement.
       (3) Awards of litigation costs.--In any judicial proceeding 
     under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the court may award 
     costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert 
     witness fees) to any prevailing party whenever it determines 
     that such award is appropriate.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. Chambliss):
  S. 1613. A bill to require the Director of National Intelligence to 
submit to Congress an unclassified report on energy security and for 
other purposes; to the Select Committee on Intelligence.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today Senator Chambliss and I are 
introducing legislation that could have a far-reaching impact on the 
national security of the United States. As every American knows, one of 
the most important elements of our national security infrastructure is 
the collection of agencies that make up our national intelligence 
community. But when most Americans think about the CIA, the FBI, or the 
NSA, they tend to think of agencies that are focused on a small handful 
of James Bond-style issues, such as missile stockpiles, new weapons 
technologies, and coups in foreign lands. These issues are still 
important, but in the modem world it is essential to recognize that 
protecting national security is a lot more complicated than it was 
during the Cold War, and there are many other issues that require 
attention and action.
  Thankfully, the men and women of the intelligence community already 
recognize this crucial fact, and are working hard to address the wide 
variety of threats and challenges that face America in the 21st 
century. Unfortunately, many policymakers still think of intelligence 
in 20th century terms, and as a result many of our national 
intelligence capabilities are underused and underappreciated.
  The best example of this is unquestionably in the field of energy 
security. American dependence on foreign oil has made our Nation less 
safe. Oil revenues have provided income for dangerous rogue states, 
they have sparked bloody civil wars, and they have even provided 
funding for terrorism. In a sickening phenomenon that I call the terror 
tax, every time that Americans drive their cars down to the gas station 
and fill up at the pump, the reality is that a portion of that money is 
then turned over to foreign governments that ``backdoor'' it over to 
Islamist extremists, who use that money to perpetuate terrorism and 
hate. As the GAO has pointed out, while talking about the oil-rich 
nation of Saudi Arabia:

       Saudi Arabia's multibillion-dollar petroleum industry, 
     although largely owned by the government, has fostered the 
     creation of large private fortunes, enabling many wealthy 
     Saudis to sponsor charities and educational foundations whose 
     operations extend to many countries. U.S. government and 
     other expert reports have linked some Saudi donations to the 
     global propagation of religious intolerance, hatred of 
     Western values, and support to terrorist activities.


[[Page S7651]]


  Furthermore, by allowing our national energy security to depend on 
foreign oil, we are leaving the American economy vulnerable to external 
shocks and disruptions. Recent American history is full of examples of 
events overseas jolting U.S. energy supplies, and just a couple decades 
ago the oil cartel known as OPEC declared an embargo which sent the 
U.S. economy into a tailspin.
  There are many other challenges out there that have the potential to 
affect U.S. national security and energy security. For example, it 
seems clear that the Middle East will remain in turmoil for years to 
come, and policmakers will have to consider the potential impact of 
events such as a terrorist attack on a major oil facility, or a change 
in government in an oil-producing state, or the further deterioration 
of the situation in Iraq. Outside of the Middle East there are other 
challenges to face, including the continued growth of major energy 
consuming countries like India and China, the policies of less-
predictable governments such as Russia and Venezuela, and the emergence 
of new energy producers in unstable areas of the world.

  As policymakers attempt to grapple with these challenges, it is vital 
for them to be informed by the best thinking available, and as I said, 
the men and women of our national intelligence agencies are already 
performing quality analysis on many topics relevant to national 
security. This expertise is spread throughout the intelligence 
community, and includes professionals at the National Intelligence 
Council, the CIA's Office of Transnational Issues, and the Office of 
Intelligence and Counterintelligence at the Department of Energy.
  Unfortunately, this expertise is rarely used to inform energy policy 
debates, primarily because these agencies generally use it to produce 
classified assessments. This means that I can discuss them in closed 
sessions of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, but not at 
hearings of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, even though 
I am a member of both committees. This legislation would address this 
problem by requiring the Director of National Intelligence to 
coordinate the production of an unclassified report on the intelligence 
community's assessments of key energy issues that have implications for 
the national security of the United States. It will be up to the 
intelligence agencies to determine what information can safely be 
discussed in public, but I am confident that the Director will be able 
to provide Congress with a report that includes thoughtful, insightful 
discussion of these issues, without revealing any sensitive information 
or compromising any sources and methods.
  This legislation is entitled the Weighing Intelligence for Smarter 
Energy Act, or the WISE Act for short. I think that my colleagues and 
the American public would agree that when it comes to protecting our 
national energy security, it certainly wouldn't hurt for Congress to be 
a little bit wiser.
  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. 1613

       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 ``Weighing Intelligence for 
     Smarter Energy Act of 2007'' or the ``WISE Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The members of the intelligence community in the United 
     States, most notably the National Intelligence Council, the 
     Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence of the 
     Department of Energy, and the Office of Transnational Issues 
     of the Central Intelligence Agency, possess substantial 
     analytic expertise with regard to global energy issues.
       (2) Energy policy debates generally do not use, to the 
     fullest extent possible, the expertise available in the 
     intelligence community.

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON ENERGY SECURITY.

       (a) Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of National 
     Intelligence shall submit to Congress a report on the long-
     term energy security of the United States.
       (2) Form of report.--The report required by subsection (a) 
     shall be submitted in an unclassified form and may include a 
     classified annex.
       (b) Content.--The report submitted pursuant to subsection 
     (a) shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of key energy issues that have national 
     security or foreign policy implications for the United 
     States.
       (2) An assessment of the future of world energy supplies, 
     including the impact likely and unlikely scenarios may have 
     on world energy supply.
       (3) A description of--
       (A) the policies being pursued, or expected to be pursued, 
     by the major energy producing countries or by the major 
     energy consuming countries, including developing countries, 
     to include policies that utilize renewable resources for 
     electrical and biofuel production;
       (B) an evaluation of the probable outcomes of carrying out 
     such policy options, including--
       (i) the economic and geopolitical impact of the energy 
     policy strategies likely to be pursued by such countries;
       (ii) the likely impact of such strategies on the decision-
     making processes on major energy cartels; and
       (iii) the impact of policies that utilize renewable 
     resources for electrical and biofuel production, including an 
     assessment of the ability of energy consuming countries to 
     reduce dependence on oil using renewable resources, the 
     economic, environmental, and developmental impact of an 
     increase in biofuels production in both developed and 
     developing countries, and the impact of an increase in 
     biofuels production on global food supplies; and
       (C) the potential impact of such outcomes on the energy 
     security and national security of the United States.

  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Weighing 
Intelligence for Smarter Energy Act, or the WISE Act. I worked with 
Senator Wyden to introduce this bill and am happy to be an original 
cosponsor.
  As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I see 
some of the most sensitive products produced by our intelligence 
community. The intelligence community's analysts possess an extensive 
and wide range of expertise on all matters which could have national 
security implications for the United States. However, because of the 
secretive nature of the intelligence community and the sensitive work 
which it conducts, few policymakers are privy to many of its products. 
In most cases, this is essential in order to protect the sensitive 
sources and methods used by our intelligence agencies. In other areas, 
including matters related to global energy security, our intelligence 
analysts can provide some valuable analysis at an unclassified level.
  Energy policy and energy security have far reaching implications for 
the United States. As the country recognizes the danger of relying on 
imported oil, we need to develop an energy policy that is aggressive 
while at the same time thoughtful. Renewable fuels like ethanol and 
biodiesel are not the solution to our problems, but they can help 
reduce our dependence on imported oil from unstable regions of the 
world during a time of rising crude oil prices. At the same time, we 
must understand and be prepared for the unintended consequences of 
pursuing alternative fuel policies and to be sensitive to their impact 
on other sectors of the U.S. and global economies. Already, incentives 
for ethanol and biodiesel in the United States, Europe, Brazil and 
other developed and developing countries are forcing changes in the 
agriculture economy not seen in over a generation. While rising demand 
for alternative fuels will increase prices for agriculture commodities 
and benefit farmers, will this increase strain development in 
developing countries, in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa? We don't 
know yet, but these are questions we should and must ask.
  We already know the impact poverty and food insecurity has on 
populations around the world. However, policymakers, especially here in 
Congress, are not realizing the full extent of information available to 
them. Energy policy debates usually do not harness the full expertise 
of the intelligence community or consider the substantive analysis they 
may contribute to the debate. Experts in the intelligence community may 
examine the effects of energy policy around the globe and the impact 
those decisions may have on U.S. policy. In addition, the intelligence 
community can provide an analysis of the impact around the world of 
policies that utilize renewable resources. This legislation asks for 
just that type of analysis.
  The WISE Act asks the intelligence community to provide an 
intelligence

[[Page S7652]]

assessment on the long-term energy security of the United States. The 
bill requests that as much of the assessment as possible be 
unclassified, while taking into consideration the need to protect 
valuable sources and methods by including a classified portion, it is 
my hope that this bill will better inform energy policy. In addition to 
informing policymakers of the energy security of the United States, the 
bill will also provide important analysis on the international impact 
of energy policies around the world.
  The WISE Act will harness fully the expertise of our intelligence 
community and allow policymakers to formulate more informed energy 
policy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the bill.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Burr):
  S. 1615. A bill to provide loans and grants for fire sprinkler 
retrofitting in nursing facilities; to the Committee on Health, 
Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to reintroduce bipartisan legislation 
with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, that seeks to 
protect nursing home residents, staff, and visitors from the dangers 
associated with fire.
  In February, 2003, a multi-alarm fire at a nursing home in Hartford, 
CT, took the lives of 16 residents. It was the worst nursing home fire 
in Connecticut's history. The tragic loss of life was made worse by the 
fact that the nursing home lacked an automatic sprinkler system, a 
defect disturbingly common in many nursing homes across the country.
  I believe many Americans, especially those with a loved one in a 
nursing home facility, would be shocked to learn that, according to the 
Government Accountability Office between 20 and 30 percent of the 
country's 17,000 nursing homes lack an automatic sprinkler system. In 
its 2004 report, the GAO found that ``the substantial loss of life in 
the [Hartford fire] could have been reduced or eliminated by the 
presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler systems.'' 
Furthermore, the report concluded that ``the Federal oversight of 
nursing home compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate.''
  Responding to the fire in Hartford and a similar tragedy in 
Nashville, TN, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, 
required that nursing homes without automatic sprinkler systems install 
battery-operated smoke detectors. While this new requirement was viewed 
as a positive step, it was largely criticized by fire and patient-
safety advocates because smoke detectors are often not wired to a 
central alarm system or a fire department.
  I believe it is safe to assume that nursing home directors do not 
choose freely to operate their facilities without automatic sprinkler 
systems. According to the GAO and the American Health Care Association, 
most nursing homes simply cannot afford the costs incurred by 
installing an automatic sprinkler system. Today, many nursing homes, 
including many in Connecticut, are financially strained by inadequate 
reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid, rising insurance 
premiums, rising energy costs, and the general cost of care for some of 
our country's most vulnerable patients.
  That is why Senator Burr and I are reintroducing this legislation. 
The Nursing Home Fire Safety Act of 2007 provides low-interest loans 
and grants to nursing homes in proven need of financial assistance. The 
larger loan initiative assists nursing homes that cannot afford the 
upfront costs of installing automatic sprinkler systems but can afford 
to pay back a low-interest Government-issued loan. The smaller grant 
initiative would assist qualified nursing homes that lack any ability 
to pay for the installation of an automatic sprinkler system. Together, 
these initiatives would provide critical resources to prevent tragedies 
like those seen in Hartford and Nashville from occurring again.
  I thank my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Burr, for 
reintroducing this bipartisan measure with me. I also thank Congressmen 
John Larson from Connecticut and Peter King from New York for 
spearheading companion legislation in the House. I look forward to 
working with all of my colleagues to protect nursing home residents, 
staff, and visitors from the dangers associated with fire.
  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. 1615

       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 ``Nursing Home Fire Safety Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) An estimated 1,500,000 Americans reside in 
     approximately 16,300 nursing facilities nationwide, an 
     estimated 20 to 30 percent of which lack an automatic fire 
     sprinkler system.
       (2) In a July 2004 report, the Government Accountability 
     Office found that ``the substantial loss of life in [recent 
     nursing home] fires could have been reduced or eliminated by 
     the presence of properly functioning automatic sprinkler 
     systems'' and that ``Federal oversight of nursing home 
     compliance with fire safety standards is inadequate''.
       (3) Many nursing facilities lack the financial capital to 
     install sprinklers on their own and must consider closure as 
     an alternative to taking on large loans or other financing 
     options in order to install sprinklers.
       (4) Recognizing that automatic fire sprinkler systems 
     greatly improve the chances of survival for older adults in 
     the event of a fire, the National Fire Protection 
     Association, with the support of the American Health Care 
     Association, the fire safety community, and the nursing 
     facility profession, recently adopted requirements for 
     automatic sprinklers in all existing nursing facilities.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) within 5 years, every nursing facility in America 
     should be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers in order to 
     ensure patient, resident, and staff safety;
       (2) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 
     should require all nursing homes to be fully sprinklered as 
     recently required by the Life Safety Code of the National 
     Fire Protection Association with the support of the nursing 
     home industry, which includes the requirement that all 
     nursing facilities be fully sprinklered; and
       (3) the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in 
     collaboration with Congress, should take into consideration 
     the costs of retrofitting existing nursing home facilities 
     and commit itself to providing facilities with the critical 
     financial resources necessary to ensure the speedy and full 
     installation of life saving sprinkler systems.

     SEC. 3. DIRECT LOANS FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS RETROFITS.

       (a) Authority.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall establish a program of direct loans to 
     existing nursing facilities to finance retrofitting the 
     facilities with an automatic fire sprinkler system. Such 
     loans shall be made under terms and conditions specified by 
     the Secretary.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.

     SEC. 4. SPRINKLER RETROFIT ASSISTANCE GRANTS.

       (a) Authority.--Not later than 120 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall establish a program to award grants to nursing 
     facilities for the purposes of retrofitting them with an 
     automatic fire sprinkler system. Such grants shall be awarded 
     under terms and conditions specified by the Secretary.
       (b) Priority.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
     Secretary shall give a priority to applications that 
     demonstrate a need or hardship. In determining hardship, the 
     Secretary may take into account factors such as the number of 
     residents who are entitled to or enrolled in the medicare 
     program under title 18 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395 et seq.) or receiving assistance under the medicaid 
     program under title 19 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.), 
     the age and condition of the facility, and the need for 
     nursing facility beds in the community involved.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may 
     be necessary for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Carper, Mr. Lugar, 
        and Mr. Obama):
  S. 1616. A bill to amend the Clean Air Act to promote and assure the 
quality of biodiesel fuel, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
would create a Federal biodiesel mandate and improve the quality and 
labeling of this product.

[[Page S7653]]

  Biodiesel fuel holds great promise to help move the United States 
toward energy independence. It is created by converting soybean oil, 
animal fats, and yellow grease and other feed stocks into 
transportation fuel.
  Compared to petrol diesel, biodiesel burns much more cleanly. 
Production of biodiesel creates jobs in rural areas and makes farming 
more profitable. The carbon footprint of biodiesel also is superior to 
petrol diesel. Cars and trucks fueled by biodiesel produce fewer 
unburned hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and particulate 
matter.
  The biodiesel industry is young but growing, and its growth is driven 
by the rising cost of oil and a growing awareness of the need to move 
toward energy independence. In 2005, the United States produced 75 
million gallons of biodiesel. That number more than tripled in 2006, 
when the United States produced 250 million gallons of biodiesel.
  By the end of this year, we expect capacity to increase to more than 
1 billion gallons. More than 140 plants already produce biodiesel, and 
more are moving to production soon. Biodiesel fuel plants can be found 
all across the country, from the Corn Belt and Great Plains to the 
Pacific Northwest and the Mid-Atlantic.
  The bipartisan bill I am introducing today with Senators Grassley, 
Carper, Lugar, and Obama is a modest attempt to take advantage of this 
potential capacity and to reduce the amount of petroleum used in the 
60-billion-gallon diesel fuel pool. Under this bill, over the next 5 
years, the United States would blend 450 million gallons of biodiesel 
into diesel fuel in 2008, 625 million gallons in 2009, 800 million 
gallons in 2010, 1 billion gallons in 2011, and 1.25 billion gallons in 
2012.
  This mandate would create an incentive for the production and 
consumption of biodiesel and give this infant industry some market 
guarantees to help it achieve stability and maturity.
  Many States already are moving in the direction of biodiesel 
mandates. My home State of Illinois has offered a biodiesel tax 
incentive since 2003 that has increased demand for the product, and 
Minnesota has had a 2-percent biodiesel mandate since 2005.
  This is an environmentally friendly, home-grown fuel, and we should 
embrace its use. I thank Senators Grassley, Carper, Lugar, and Obama 
for their early support and urge others in the Senate to cosponsor our 
legislation.

                          ____________________