Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)

[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.

____________________