[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 101 (Thursday, June 21, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8234-S8242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bingaman, Ms.
Cantwell, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Harkin,
Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Enzi, and Mr.
Pryor):
S. 1673. A bill to facilitate the export of United States
agricultural products to Cuba as authorized by the Trade Sanctions
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, to remove impediments to the
export to Cuba of medical devices and medicines, to allow travel to
Cuba by United States citizens, to establish an agricultural export
promotion program with respect to Cuba, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation
with Senator Mike Crapo, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel,
and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson to help open a promising market to
American exports. That market is Cuba.
For too long, we have maintained ideologically driven restrictions
that have undermined our export competitiveness in a market 90 miles
away from us.
Just beyond our shoreline, our trading partners--especially Canada
and China--are making multi billion-dollar investments in a Cuban
economy that is growing at a rate of 7 to 12 percent per year. But the
United States just stands by while these and other countries capitalize
on opportunities in our own backyard.
Our economic policy toward Cuba simply is not working. This bill
changes that.
The greatest opportunities exist in Cuba's agriculture sector. When
Congress passed legislation allowing food and medicine sales to Cuba in
2000, some people said Cuba would never buy. Fidel Castro himself
predicted that Cuba would buy ``not one grain'' from the United States.
But Mr. Castro was wrong. Agricultural sales happened. In 2004 alone,
Cubans bought more than $375 million in American agricultural products.
And, today, nearly every state in the union wants to get into the
largest agriculture market in the Caribbean.
I have worked tirelessly to market Montana's high quality agriculture
products, and it has paid off. In 2003, I inked a $10 million deal with
Cuba. After we completed that deal, I went back to Havana and signed
another deal--for $15 million. We have sent Montana wheat, beans and
peas to Cuba, and that is just the beginning.
But it has not been easy. In 2005, the Treasury Department issued a
rule to undermine the will of Congress. In landmark legislation,
Congress in 2000 facilitated agriculture exports to Cuba by authorizing
the use of cash basis sales. But the Treasury rule made such
transactions impossible. Instead, sellers had to resort to foreign
letters of credit, which are time-consuming, complicated, and
expensive, especially for smaller exporters.
The Treasury rule stunted what had been meteoric growth in American
agriculture exports to Cuba. This rule flies in the face of the law,
and it will not stand.
Today's bill overturns the Treasury rule. It clarifies that not only
do we intend to let these cash basis sales go forward, we mean to
expand and promote them. This bill also ensures that exporters and
commodity groups looking to get into the Cuban market get help from the
Department of Agriculture. And it would require our Agriculture
Department to promote American agricultural exports for Cuba.
Increased agriculture sales will allow Cubans to become familiar with
more and more American branded food products. But a little-known
provision of U.S. law--known as section 211--invites Cuba to withhold
trademark protection from these and other American food exports.
Today's bill also addresses that problem.
Section 211 bars U.S. courts from hearing claims of foreign nationals
to trademarks similar to or associated with expropriated properties. It
also forbids the United States from allowing foreign nationals to
register or renew such trademark rights. In other words, it denies
trademark protection to Cuban assets. If we are not going to recognize
Cuban brands, why should Cuba, in the future, recognize American
brands?
The World Trade Organization has already struck down section 211 as
inconsistent with U.S. international trade obligations. It is time for
this Congress to do the same. My bill repeals this wrong-headed and
WTO-inconsistent provision. It ensures the continued security of
thousands of American-owned trademarks already registered in Cuba.
I am a big proponent of getting American food products into Cuba. But
I also fundamentally believe that we should never use food and medicine
as a weapon against a people, no matter what we think of their
government.
Many of my colleagues agree with me on this. This is why Congress, in
the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, authorized medicine and medical supplies
sales to Cuba. But, at that time, we didn't get it quite right. We
passed a law with good intent but loaded it up with so many
restrictions that we have made medical sales to Cuba more difficult
than medical sales to Iran or North Korea.
My bill will correct this lopsided and inhumane policy. It will allow
Cubans access to our medicines and medical products--which are the best
money can buy--on the same terms that we offer to other regimes. There
is no sound reason to deny our products to our Cuban neighbors but
allow such sales to Iran and North Korea.
I have taken Montana farmers and ranchers to Cuba to explore export
opportunities. But such opportunities are rare because our government,
with limited exceptions, does not permit travel to Cuba. And those
exceptions are so riddled with red tape as to discourage applicants
from making use of them.
Many Americans are ready and willing to travel to Cuba, and not just
to make agriculture sales. Religious organizations have deep roots on
the island--since before the Castro government. They are a lifeline,
bringing hope, help, and brotherhood to their counterparts in Cuba.
American academics and professionals engage in thoughtful exchanges of
research and ideas. American students visit with Cuban students, and
they learn lessons a teacher cannot imbue.
Nearly everyone in Cuba has a dear friend or relative living in the
United States. Tens of thousands of Cubans who found their way to
America save their hard earned dollars on frequent trips home, their
bags packed with medicine, vitamins, and clothing.
Rather than encourage these meaningful contacts between Cubans and
Americans, our government stifles our interaction. Rather than unite
the Cuban family, our government seeks to divide it further.
Americans do not benefit from this policy. The Cuban people do not
benefit from this policy. Only those who seek to keep Americans and
Cubans apart benefit from our misguided policy of isolation.
It is time to reach out to the Cuban people. It is time to restore
Americans' fundamental right to travel anywhere they want. It is time
to lift the travel ban.
I am proud of our bill. It spells out the right policy during this
fundamental transition in Cuba. It helps farmers and ranchers in
Montana and elsewhere seek opportunities in a nearby market. And it
affords our citizens the opportunity to spread American generosity,
assistance, and values to Cuba.
I look forward to working with Senator Crapo, Chairman Rangel,
Congresswoman Emerson, and others to put our trade relationship with
Cuba on the right path.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bunning, Mr.
Carper, Mr. Brown, Mr. Casey, and Ms. Stabenow):
[[Page S8235]]
S. 1677. A bill to amend the Exchange Rates and International
Economic Coordination Act of 1988 and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Currency Reform and
Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 on behalf of myself, Senator
Shelby, Senator Bayh, Senator Carper, Senator Brown, and Senator Casey.
Nearly two decades ago, the Senate Banking Committee enacted
legislation which required the Treasury Department to identify
countries that manipulate their currency for purposes of gaining an
unfair competitive trade advantage and to take prompt action to
eliminate the unfair trade advantage when manipulation is found.
One of the very first actions that I undertook as chairman-elect of
the Senate Banking Committee in December 2006 was to write a letter
with then-Chairman Shelby to the Treasury Secretary about the report
required under this legislation, the International Economic and
Exchange Rate Policy Report and the inaugural U.S.-China strategic
economic dialogue, SED. In that letter, we expressed our concern that
the Treasury Department had not cited China, and potentially other
nations, as currency manipulators.
At one of the very first hearings I held as chairman, in January
2007, Treasury Secretary Paulson provided his first congressional
testimony since his confirmation, on the SED and the exchange rate
report. At that hearing, Secretary Paulson testified that China did not
meet the technical requirement for designation as a currency
manipulator and that the SED is the ``best chance to get some progress
[on the currency issue].''
Senator Shelby and I wrote to Secretary Paulson in advance of the
most recent exchange rate report and the May SED urging him to consider
steps beyond dialogue to eliminate the unfair trade advantage resulting
from China's ongoing currency manipulation and discriminatory market
access practices. But instead of taking action, the Treasury Department
once again chose not to cite China as a currency manipulator in its
latest report to the Senate Banking Committee, despite acknowledging
``heavy foreign exchange market intervention by China's central bank to
manage the currency tightly.''
Secretary Paulson's efforts to engage the Chinese through dialogue
are commendable, but after two meetings of the strategic economic
dialogue, numerous congressional hearings, and the shortcomings of the
most recent exchange rate reports, it is clear that dialogue alone is
not enough to make progress and legislative action is needed.
Therefore, Senator Shelby and I are today introducing the Currency
Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 which will provide the
Treasury Department and Congress new, tough authority to recognize and
remedy currency manipulation without ambiguity or delay.
Under current law, Treasury claims that no countries meet the
technical finding of intent to manipulate their currencies. Treasury
reiterated this point in its most recent exchange rate report, stating:
The Department of the Treasury concluded that, although the
Chinese currency is undervalued, China did not meet the
technical requirements for designation under the terms of
Section 3004 of the Act during the period under
consideration. Treasury was unable to determine that China's
exchange rate policy was carried out for the purpose of
preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or
gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade.
The Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 requires
a Treasury designation of currency manipulation based on objective
data, and without regard to subjective factors such as purpose or
intent, removing a technicality that the Treasury Department has been
using to defend its inaction.
Once currency manipulation is found, the bill requires the Treasury
Department to submit a detailed plan of action to the Congress within
30 days of such finding. The plan of action sets specific timeframes
and benchmarks, with the goal of remedying the manipulation. The bill
also requires the Treasury to initiate both bilateral and multilateral
negotiations, including immediate IMF consultations and to use the
Treasury's voice and vote at the IMF to address the manipulation.
Our bill also provides new authority for the Treasury to file a WTO
article XV case to remedy currency manipulation if the goals and
benchmarks for progress are not met within 9 months of designation.
If the Treasury continues to avoid designating countries as currency
manipulators, our bill creates a new process by which Congress, led by
either the Senate Banking or House Financial Services Committee, can
originate a joint resolution of disapproval of the Treasury's inaction
and provides for an expedited process for such a motion through the
floors of both Chambers.
Finally, the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007
promotes market access for U.S. financial services firms to level the
playing field for American businesses and to help develop the financial
sector reform needed to support a freely floating currency in China. It
also requires the Treasury Department to report on the progress of the
SED, as well as on opening foreign markets to American financial
services firms. It is time for American firms to be afforded the same
open and fair treatment abroad that our country provides to foreign
firms in the United States.
I am confident that in a free and fair environment American business
and entrepreneurship will flourish. Our bill will require Treasury to
assume its responsibility as a referee and will fight to level this
playing field by identifying and addressing unfair practices and market
access barriers.
During the SED events in Beijing, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke
talked about the market distortions that result from ``an effective
subsidy that an undervalued currency provides for Chinese firms that
focus on exporting.'' I agree with Chairman Bernanke that undervalued
currency is an export subsidy causing market disruptions and fully
dealing with such subsidies can involve some trade remedies that are
not within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction and hence not within
the scope of this bill. But, remedying countervailable export subsidies
is a policy that could be fully appropriate and supported by myself and
my colleagues through other legislative proposals.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a one page summary
of the bill, and letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
S. 1677
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 ``Currency Reform and
Financial Markets Access Act of 2007''.
TITLE I--EXCHANGE RATES AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY COORDINATION
ACT OF 1988
SEC. 101. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
Section 3003 of the Exchange Rates and International
Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5303) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and
inserting a semicolon; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the United States, and other major industrialized
countries, should, where appropriate, work together, through
bilateral and multilateral discussions and international
economic institutions, to ensure that the rate of exchange of
the currencies of the major trading nations and the United
States dollar--
``(A) reflect economic fundamentals and market forces; and
``(B) contribute to the growth and balance of the
international economy; and
``(6) the United States should take all appropriate and
necessary measures to ensure that the major trading partners
of the United States are not engaged in hidden or unfair
subsidies through management of their currency or
international exchange rates.''.
SEC. 102. FAIR CURRENCY.
(a) In General.--Section 3004(b) of the Exchange Rates and
International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22
U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(b) Bilateral Negotiations.--
``(1) Analysis.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall
analyze on an annual basis the exchange rate policies of
foreign countries, in consultation with the International
Monetary Fund, and consider whether any country, regardless
of intent, manipulates the rate of exchange between its
currency and the United States dollar in a manner that--
[[Page S8236]]
``(A) prevents effective balance of payments adjustments;
``(B) gains an unfair competitive advantage in
international trade; or
``(C) results in an accumulation of substantial dollar
currency reserves.
``(2) Determination.--The Secretary shall make an
affirmative determination that a country is manipulating its
currency and take the action described in paragraphs (3),
(4), and (5) with respect to any country the Secretary
considers is manipulating its currency as described in
paragraph (1), if that country--
``(A) has a material global current account surplus; and
``(B) has significant bilateral trade surpluses with the
United States; and
``(C) has engaged in prolonged one-way intervention in the
currency markets.
``(3) Action.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of any country with respect
to which the Secretary makes an affirmative determination
under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, not later than 30
days after the determination is made, establish a plan of
action to remedy the currency manipulation, and submit a
report regarding that plan, to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on
Financial Services of the House of Representatives.
``(B) Benchmarks.--The report described in subparagraph (A)
shall include specific benchmarks and timeframes for
correcting the currency manipulation.
``(4) Initial negotiations.--The Secretary shall initiate,
on an expedited basis, bilateral negotiations with each
country with respect to which an affirmative determination is
made under paragraph (2) for the purpose of ensuring that the
country regularly and promptly adjusts the rate of exchange
between its currency and the United States dollar to permit
effective balance of payment adjustments and to eliminate the
unfair competitive advantage.
``(5) Coordination with the international monetary fund.--
The Secretary, within 30 days of the determination made under
paragraph (2), shall instruct the Executive Director to the
International Monetary Fund to use the voice and vote of the
United States, including requesting consultations under
Article IV of the Articles of Agreement of the International
Monetary Fund, for the purpose of ensuring that each country
with respect to which an affirmative determination is made
under paragraph (2) regularly and promptly adjusts the rate
of exchange between its currency and the United States dollar
to permit effective balance of payments adjustments and to
eliminate the unfair competitive advantage in trade.
``(6) Follow-up report.--Not later than 300 days after an
affirmative determination is made under paragraph (2), if the
country with respect to which the affirmative determination
is made continues to manipulate the rate of exchange between
its currency and the United States dollar and the benchmarks
in the report required under paragraph (3) have not been met,
the Secretary shall initiate action pursuant to the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes annexed to the WTO Agreement to
address the country's currency manipulation and violations of
the country's obligations under article XV of GATT 1994.
``(7) Exception.--The Secretary is not required to initiate
action in any case in which the President determines that the
action will have a serious detrimental impact on the vital
economic and security interests of the United States. If the
President makes a determination under the preceding sentence,
the President shall inform the chairman and the ranking
minority member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs of the Senate and of the Committee on Financial
Services of the House of Representatives of the President's
determination.''.
(b) Definitions.--Section 3006 of the Exchange Rates and
International Economic Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C.
5306) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) GATT 1994.--The term `GATT 1994' has the meaning
given such term in section 2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(1)(B)).
``(4) WTO agreement.--The term `WTO Agreement' means the
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization entered
into on April 15, 1994.''.
SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Section 3005 of the Exchange Rates and International
Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5305) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) by striking ``In furtherance'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--In furtherance''; and
(B) by striking the last sentence; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) Appearances before the congress.--The Secretary shall
appear before the Congress at semi-annual hearings to provide
testimony on the reports referred to in paragraph (1)--
``(A) before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs of the Senate on or about October 15 of each even
numbered calendar year and on or about April 15 of each odd
numbered calendar year;
``(B) before the Committee on Financial Services of the
House of Representatives on or about April 15 of each even
numbered calendar year and on or about October 15 of each odd
numbered calendar year;
``(C) before either Committee referred to in subparagraph
(A) or (B), upon request of the Chairman, following the
scheduled appearance of the Secretary before the other
Committee.''.
SEC. 104. CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION OF CURRENCY
MANIPULATION.
The Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy
Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended
by inserting after section 3004 the following:
``SEC. 3004A. ACTION BASED ON COMMITTEE RESOLUTION.
``(a) In General.--In this section, the term `joint
resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced in the
period beginning on the date on which the report referred to
section 3004(b)(3) of the Exchange Rates and International
Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 is received by the
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate
or the Committee on Financial Services of the House of
Representatives and ending 60 days thereafter (excluding days
either House of Congress is adjourned for more than 3 days
during a session of Congress), the matter after the resolving
clause of which is as follows: `That Congress disapproves of
the determination of the Secretary of the Treasury relating
to the finding of currency manipulation as described in
section 3004(b) of the Exchange Rates and International
Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 in the report
relating to ________, submitted on ___________.', with the
first blank space being filled with the name of the country
(or countries) to which the determination relates and the
second blank space being filled with the date the report was
submitted.
``(b) Procedures for Considering Resolutions.--
``(1) Original resolutions.--Resolutions of disapproval
shall be original resolutions, which--
``(A) in the House of Representatives shall originate from
the Committee on Financial Services and, in addition, be
referred to the Committee on Rules; and
``(B) in the Senate shall originate from the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affair.
``(2) Floor consideration.--
``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) of
section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192(d)
through (f)) (relating to floor consideration of certain
resolutions in the House and Senate) apply to a joint
resolution of disapproval under this section to the same
extent as such subsections apply to joint resolutions under
such section 152.
``(B) Modification of section 152.--Section 152(f) of the
Trade Act of 1974 shall be applied--
``(i) by substituting `described in section 3004A of the
Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination
Act of 1988' for `described in section 152 or 153(a),
whichever is applicable,' in paragraph (2); and
``(ii) by substituting `a joint resolution described in
section 3004A of the Exchange Rates and International
Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988' for `a joint
resolution described in subsection (a)(2)(B)' in paragraph
(3).
``(c) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This
section is enacted by the Congress--
``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House
of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such
are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively,
and such procedures supersede other rules only to the extent
that they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
``(2) with the full recognition of the constitutional right
of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to
the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same
manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that
House.''.
TITLE II--FINANCIAL REPORTS ACT OF 1988
SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``Promoting Market Access
for Financial Services Act''.
SEC. 202. REPORT ON FOREIGN TREATMENT OF UNITED STATES
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.
The Financial Reports Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5351 et seq.)
is amended--
(1) in section 3602--
(A) by striking ``QUADRENNIAL'' and inserting ``ANNUAL'' in
the heading; and
(B) by striking ``not less frequently than every 4 years,
beginning December 1, 1990'' and inserting ``beginning July
1, 2008, and annually thereafter,'';
(C) by striking ``to the Congress'' and inserting ``to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House
of Representatives'';
(2) in section 3603--
(A) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as
subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after subsection (a), the following:
``(b) Report on SED.--The Secretary shall include in the
initial report required under section 3602 a summary of the
results of the most recent US-China Strategic Economic
Dialogue (SED) and the results of the SED as it relates to
promoting market access for financial institutions. The
reports required under section 3602 shall include a progress
report on the implementation of any agreements resulting from
the SED, a description
[[Page S8237]]
of the remaining challenges, if any, in improving market
access for financial institutions, and a plan, including
benchmarks and timeframes, for dealing with the remaining
challenges. Each report shall specifically address issues
regarding--
``(1) foreign investment rules;
``(2) the problems of a dual-share stock market;
``(3) the openness of the derivatives market;
``(4) restrictions on foreign bank branching;
``(5) the ability to offer insurance (including innovative
products); and
``(6) regulatory and procedural transparency.''.
The Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007--
June 12, 2007
The Dodd-Shelby legislation would take significant new
action to recognize and remedy currency manipulation by China
and other countries, which has been harming the American
economy, hurting our manufacturing base and driving record
U.S. trade deficits. The bill also promotes Treasury's role
in enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. financial services
firms.
Strengthens Treasury's ability to find currency
manipulation: Strengthens the definition of currency
manipulation to identify countries that have both a material
global current account surplus and a significant bilateral
trade surplus with the United States as currency
manipulators, without regard to intent.
Requires Treasury to address and remedy currency
manipulation: Requires the Treasury Department to submit a
detailed plan of action to the Congress within 30 days of a
finding by Treasury of manipulation. The plan of action shall
set specific timeframes and benchmarks, with the goal of
remedying the manipulation; Requires Treasury to engage in
bilateral and multilateral negotiations with countries that
manipulate their currency. The Treasury must immediately seek
IMF consultations when manipulation is found and requires
Treasury to use its voice and vote at the IMF to that end;
Provides Treasury the authority to file a WTO Article XV case
to remedy currency manipulation if the goals and benchmarks
are not met within 9 months.
Authorizes a Congressional disapproval process: Creates a
process by which Congress, led by either the Senate Banking
or House Financial Services Committee, can originate a joint
resolution of disapproval when Treasury fails to cite
manipulation. Provides for an expedited process for such a
motion through the floors of both chambers.
Promotes market access for U.S. financial services firms:
Requires Treasury to annually monitor and report to the
Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services
Committee on market access barriers for U.S. financial
services firms, to identify challenges, and to develop plans
to address those barriers; Requires the Treasury's initial
report to include the status of the US-China Strategic
Economic Dialogue (SED) as it relates to financial services
firms. This would become the only congressionally required
report on the progress of the SED.
The Financial Services Forum,
June 21, 2007.
Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Dodd: We are writing to applaud the focus you
have given to market access in Title II of the Currency
Reform and Markets Access Act of 2007. We commend your
bipartisan effort to introduce legislation that recognizes
the importance of further access for U.S. financial services
firms to China's markets.
The Forum is encouraged by the Senators' interest in the
U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue and efforts to remove
market access barriers for U.S. financial services firms.
A more open, modern, and effective financial sector in
China is a prerequisite to successfully addressing issues
that have complicated the U.S.-China economic relationship
such as currency reform and the trade imbalance.
The fastest way for China to develop the modern financial
system it needs to achieve more sustainable economic growth,
allow for a more flexible currency, and increase consumer
consumption--thereby opening new markets for U.S. products
and services--is to import it by opening its financial sector
to greater participation by foreign financial services firms.
We look forward to working with all of Congress in
continuing to draw focus and attention to this key issue for
economic reform and financial modernization in China and
other emerging markets.
Sincerely,
Donald L. Evans.
____
China Currency Coalition,
Washington, DC., June 21, 2007.
China Currency Coalition Welcomes Introduction of Dodd-Shelby Bill as a
Helpful Step To Address Currency Manipulation
(Washington, DC).--The China Currency Coalition (``CCC''),
an alliance of industry, agriculture, and worker
organizations whose mission is to support U.S. manufacturing,
voiced its support of the Dodd-Shelby bill introduced today
as a positive development in on-going efforts needed by the
United States and the international community to rein in
dangerous trade imbalances attributable to currency
manipulation.
``Enactment of the Dodd-Shelby bill would be a key step
forward in addressing the China currency issue,'' said David
A. Hartquist, counsel to the CCC. ``The Treasury Department
and the International Monetary Fund should make every effort
to discourage and correct protracted undervaluation of
countries' currencies as a monetary problem,'' he continued,
``and the Dodd-Shelby bill is a significant help in this
regard. We appreciate that Chairman Dodd recognizes that
additional legislation may be appropriate to address
countervailable subsidies resulting from China's currency
manipulation.''
``At the same time,'' noted Hartquist, ``when a currency is
seriously undervalued for a protracted period of time, as
China's has been since 1994, there are very damaging effects
on trade. It is vitally important that the hybrid nature of
this sort of exchange-rate misalignment is acknowledged so
that both the negative monetary and trade aspects of such
behavior by a country are addressed. That is why the CCC
continues to urge passage of the Bunning-Stabenow-Bayh-Snowe
bill, S. 796, and its counterpart in the House, the Ryan-
Hunter bill, H.R. 782. These bills recognize that undervalued
exchange-rate misalignment by China or any other country is
countervailable prohibited export subsidy under U.S. and
international law. The CCC is very grateful to Senators Bayh,
Bunning, and Stabenow and to Congressmen Ryan and Hunter for
their leadership on this important issue.''
The China Currency Coalition's co-chairs are AFL-CIO
Secretary-Treasurer Richard L. Trumka and Doug Bartlett,
Chairman of Bartlett Manufacturing Company, Inc., in Cary,
Illinois, and also Chairman of the United States Business &
Industry Council. David A. Hartquist is a senior partner at
the Washington, D.C. office of Kelley Drye Collier Shannon
where he heads the international trade practice.
For more information on the China Currency Coalition, visit
www.chinacurrencycoalition.org.
______
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Smith, Ms. Mikulski,
and Mr. Inouye):
S. 1678. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
ensure more timely access to home health services for Medicare
beneficiaries under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator
Conrad, Senator Smith, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Inouye, to
introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens
have timely access to home health services under the Medicare Program.
Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives,
and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important
roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural
and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be
in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in
1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services
provided by these health professionals as long as those services are
within their scope of practice under State law.
Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered
nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home
health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only
physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for
Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the
patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases,
the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the
patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner,
physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse
midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best,
this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps
to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it
can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home
health care they need simply because a physician is not readily
available to sign the form.
The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician
assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for
Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these
providers may be the only health care professionals available. For
example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a
Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only
health care professional
[[Page S8238]]
serving the patient's small rural town, and the supervising physician
was located 60 miles away.
A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her
collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available.
As a consequence, the patient experienced a 2-day delay in getting
needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another
physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous
that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute
facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to
wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and
occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health
agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation
of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to
authorize when the patient was in the facility.
The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure
that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care they need when
they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners,
clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home
health services. Our legislation is supported by the National
Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association,
the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of
Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse
Associations of America.
I urge my colleagues to sign onto this legislation as cosponsors. I
ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
American Nurses Association,
June 6, 2007.
Hon, Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Gordon Smith,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Collins and Smith: I am writing on behalf of
the American Nurses Association, ANA, to express support for
the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 2007. ANA is
the only full- service national association representing
registered nurses, RNs. Through our 54 state and territorial
nursing associations, we represent RNs across the nation in
all practice settings.
ANA applauds your efforts to improve access to home health
services. Advanced practice registered nurses, APRNs, are
playing an increasing role in American health care delivery.
Nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and
certified nurse midwives can practice independent of
physicians in most states. Many studies have shown that APRNs
provide cost-effective, high quality care. In addition, they
are often willing to provide services in areas where access
to physicians is limited.
Medicare has recognized the independent practice of APRNs
for nearly two decades, and these health care professionals
now provide the majority of skilled care to home health
patients. Unfortunately, a quirk in Medicare law has kept
APRNs from signing home health plans of care and from
certifying Medicare patients for the home health benefit. In
areas where access to physicians is limited, this outdated
prohibition has lead to delays in health care delivery. These
delays in care inconvenience patients and their families. In
addition, delays can also result in increased cost to the
Medicare system when patients are unnecessarily left in more
expensive institutional settings.
The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 2007 would
address these problems by specifically allowing nurse
practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified
nurse midwives to certify home health services. ANA looks
forward to working with you to support the enactment of this
important legislation.
Sincerely,
Rose Gonzalez, MPS, RN Director, Government Affairs.
____
American College of
Nurse-Midwives,
Silver Spring, MD, June 14, 2007.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the certified nurse-
midwife, CNM, and certified midwife, CM, members of the
American College of Nurse-Midwives, ACNM, I am writing to
express strong support for the legislation you plan to
introduce this week to ensure appropriate and timely access
to necessary home health services for women that might be in
the care of a certified nurse-midwife or other primary care
provider.
As you know, currently Medicare only allows a physician to
order home health services for Medicare beneficiaries. ACNM
believes this is an antiquated requirement that fails to
recognize the role advanced practice nurses, including
certified nurse-midwives, play in the delivery of high
quality, primary care services. Your legislation would ensure
that a patient under the care of a certified nurse-midwife
can receive necessary home health services in a timely
manner. This is particularly important for those women with
disabilities who are covered by the Medicare program and are
of childbearing age. It is also important for senior women
who might be under the care of a certified nurse-midwife for
primary care services.
Thank you again for your leadership on this important
matter. ACNM looks forward to working with you to see this
legislation's passage during the 110th Congress. For further
information on this matter, please contact Mr. Patrick
Cooney, ACNM's Federal Representative, at (202) 347-0034.
Sincerely,
Eunice K.M. Ernst,
CNM, MPH, DSn(Hon), FACNM, President.
____
National Association for
Home Care & Hospice,
Washington, DC, June 6, 2007.
Hon. Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the National Association
for Home Care & Hospice, NAHC, I am writing to offer our
appreciation and support for the Home Health Care Planning
Improvement Act of 2007 that would allow nurse practitioners,
NPs, clinical nurse specialists, CNSs, certified nurse
midwives, CNMs, and physicians' assistants, PAs, to sign
Medicare home health plans of care. We commend you for this
much needed legislation that will help ensure timely access
to home health services while reducing Medicare expenditures
on more costly institutional care.
NPs, CNSs, CNMs, and PAs are playing an increasing role in
the delivery of our nation's health care, especially in rural
and underserved areas, and are providing necessary medical
services to Medicare beneficiaries. They are often more
familiar with particular cases than the attending physician.
In addition, they are sometimes more readily available than
physicians to expedite the processing of necessary paperwork,
ensuring that home health agencies will be reimbursed in a
timely manner and that care to the beneficiary will not be
interrupted. Studies have shown that the expanded use of
these professionals can result in dramatic decreases in
expensive hospitalizations and nursing home stays.
We appreciate the outstanding leadership you have shown in
helping make home and community-based services more readily
available to our nation's elderly population and those with
disabilities.
With our highest regards,
Val J. Halamandaris,
President.
____
American Academy,
of Nurse Practitioners,
Washington, DC. June 7, 2007.
Senator Susan Collins,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: I am writing in behalf of the
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners to endorse the
introduction of the Home Health Improvement Act of 2007. This
bill will authorize nurse practitioners to order home health
services for patients for whose care they are responsible.
As you know, nurse practitioners have been authorized Part
B Medicare providers since 1998. Under the provisions of this
law, nurse practitioners render, order and refer for services
under their own PIN and UPIN numbers. They may order physical
therapy, occupational therapy, bill as consultant and
consultees when providing services through telemedicine and
order and bill for performing and interpreting diagnostic
tests within their scope of practice. Despite their ability
to provide and bill for services in all of these areas, they
are still unable to refer patients for home health care.
Nurse practitioners have been demonstrated to provide safe
and responsible care to the patients they serve. They have
expert knowledge that allows them to provide high level
assessments of patient needs and recognize when additional
care, such as home health care is needed or not needed by
their patients. Given their proven track record in the care
of the elderly, it is not logical that nurse practitioners
are authorized to be Part B providers, but are unable to
order home health care and hospice care for their patients.
Currently nurse practitioners with patients needing home
health care services must locate a physician who will see the
patient and write the orders for this care. Not only is the
patient's well being jeopardized by the delays that are
incurred by this requirement, but added cost is incurred by
the Medicare program through extra visits to providers with
higher reimbursement rates than nurse practitioners. Passage
of this bill will increase the quality and timeliness of care
to patients who need home health nursing services.
Sincerely,
Jan Towers PhD, NP-C, CRNP, FAANP,
Director of Health Policy.
____
[[Page S8239]]
American College,
of Nurse Practitioners,
June 7, 2007.
Hon. Susan Collins,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the American College of
Nurse Practitioners (ACNP), a national, non-profit membership
organization whose mission is to ensure a solid policy and
regulatory foundation that enables Nurse Practitioners to
continue providing accessible, high quality healthcare to the
nation--I am writing to express our appreciation to you for
introducing the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of
2007.
The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act importantly
will amend the Social Security Act by broadening access to
home health services for Medicare beneficiaries. A patient's
Nurse Practitioner, physicians' assistant, or certified nurse
midwife will now have the right to make changes to their home
health care plan. Your critical legislation will safeguard
the patient's continuity of care by preventing interruptions
due to delays in paperwork from an oftentimes off-site
physician who may never have even seen the patient.
The bill also recognizes the professional training and
qualifications of Nurse Practitioners and ensures quality
patient care, especially in rural and underserved areas where
Nurse Practitioners are often more familiar with particular
cases than the attending physician. ACNP thanks you for your
ongoing support of the Nurse Practitioner community. Please
know that ACNP stands ready to work with you and your staff
to ensure Medicare beneficiaries have access to the highest
quality care. If we can be of any assistance, please feel
free to contact our Health Policy Advisor, Jodie Curtis
(Jodie.C[email protected]) or our Chief Executive Officer,
Carolyn Hutcherson (C[email protected]).
Sincerely,
Susan Apold, PhD, ANP,
President.
____
American Academy
of Physician Assistants,
Alexandria, VA, June 6, 2007.
Hon. Susan M. Collins,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the more than 60,000
clinically practicing physician assistants (PAs) in the
United States represented by the American Academy of
Physician Assistants (AAPA), I thank you for introducing the
Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 2007. The AAPA
strongly supports this important piece of legislation, and
looks forward to working with you to secure its passage
during the 110th Congress.
In 2006, nearly 231 million patient visits were made to
physician assistants (PAs) and over 286 million prescriptions
were written by PAs. PAs have a longstanding history of
providing care in medically underserved communities, and have
been credited with improving access to quality and cost-
effective health care for many among the nation's most
vulnerable patient populations.
Although the 1997 Balanced Budget Act extended Medicare
coverage of medical services provided by PAs, as allowed by
state law, PAs are not able to order home health care for
Medicare beneficiaries. At best, PAs and their supervising
physicians are forced to go through unnecessary extra steps
to ensure that all home health orders are signed by the
physician before the care is provided. At worst, Medicare
beneficiaries experience needless delays in receiving home
health care because a physician is not available on-site to
sign the form.
The inability of PAs to order home health care is
particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in
medically underserved communities where a PA may be the only
health care professional available. For example,
Needed home health care was delayed by over a week for a
Medicare patient in Nevada, because the PA's supervising
physician was located 60 miles away. The PA, who holds a
full-time job in another part of the state, is the only
health care professional for the patient's small rural town,
providing care two weekends a month;
critical access hospitals in Nevada and other states are
having difficulty with discharge planning. By law, critical
access hospitals must have a PA or nurse practitioner on site
fifty percent of the time. However, Medicare will not accept
home health orders that have been signed by a PA;
PAs in orthopedic practice regularly work after-hours and
on weekends. However, necessary home health care must be
delayed for Medicare beneficiaries until a physician is
available to sign the order.
The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 2007
increases Medicare beneficiaries' access to needed care by
allowing PAs to order home health care. The AAPA is pleased
to endorse the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of
2007.
Sincerely yours,
Mary P. Ettari, MPH, PA-C,
President.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 1680. A bill to provide for the inclusion of certain non-Federal
land in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and the Alaska Peninsula
National Wildlife Refuge in the State of Alaska, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula
Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Enhancement Act authorizes a land
exchange among the U.S. Department of the Interior, the State of
Alaska, and the people of King Cove. King Cove is an Alaska Native
village and many of its present day residents descend from the
indigenous Aleut people who have lived and thrived in this isolated
area of the Alaska Peninsula for over 4,000 years.
This bill provides the land for a road on which to travel to the
nearest all-weather airport which is located in Cold Bay. The people of
King Cove do not have a road to their airport today because a National
Wildlife Refuge wilderness sits between their village and Cold Bay.
World War II prompted the construction of a major air facility at
Cold Bay, which is about 25 miles north of King Cove. Today, the Cold
Bay Airport with a 10,000 foot main runway and a 6,500 foot crosswind
runway is one of the largest airport facilities in Alaska and is
accessible 365 days a year. However, the problem for King Cove
residents has always been their inability to get to the airport on a
predictable basis due to constant, ever changing weather conditions,
combined with King Cove's topographic constraints.
These topographic constraints are directly related to the location of
King Cove's small gravel airstrip nestled between 3,000 foot volcanic
peaks. To access the airstrip in King Cove, pilots must navigate a
narrow opening in the mountains.
Over the past 30 years, efforts by King Cove residents attempting to
reach the Cold Bay Airport have resulted in numerous small plane
crashes, some fatal. Neither King Cove nor Cold Bay have the sort of
hospital facilities that are found in Anchorage. When King Cove people
have a serious medical condition, they need to be ``medevaced'' to
Anchorage from Cold Bay. That assumes that they can reach the airport
at Cold Bay.
This legislation accomplishes the goal of providing the King Cove
people with a road to the airport. It accomplishes this goal in a way
that provides a net gain, rather than a net loss, to wilderness. The
exchange provided for in this bill will add 61,723 acres to the Izembek
and Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuges. It adds 45,456 acres of
wilderness, the first new wilderness areas designated by the Congress
in Alaska in a generation. Not since the passage of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, has new wilderness been
designated in Alaska.
More importantly, this bill will add key areas of wildlife habitat to
these two world-class wildlife refuges. Habitat for some of the largest
and wildest brown bears in the world will transfer from private to
public ownership. Other areas include key habitat for internationally
valued waterfowl such as stellar eiders and brants.
I am sad to say that this is not a new issue for this body. The
people of King Cove have been seeking justice in the form of a simple
road to Cold Bay for decades. Congress attempted to make things right
for the people of King Cove about a decade ago and came up with an
imperfect solution.
This imperfect solution involved the construction of a 17-mile road
from King Cove to a point near the border of the Izembek Refuge
wilderness and a very expensive hovercraft to ferry King Cove residents
across the rough waters of Cold Bay. The community has concluded that
it cannot afford the cost of the hovercraft solution.
This bill will finish the job started by the Congress a few years
ago. This bill provides a wonderful combination of wilderness additions
in return for a small road corridor within the Izembek Wildlife Refuge
to permit the current 17-mile road to be completed all the way to Cold
Bay. This is the fairest and most logical process by which the King
Cove residents and the nation can all benefit.
I want to commend the parties who have worked on this bill. The State
of Alaska, has brought nearly 43,000 acres to this exchange. Without
this land, the exchange would not be possible. The King Cove Native
Corporation, which is a Village Corporation created
[[Page S8240]]
by the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act, ANCSA, is donating
approximately 2,500 acres of high value wetland habitat in Kinzaroff
Lagoon. This lagoon is part of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and
will be designated as wilderness, so that the mouth of this lagoon will
be in public ownership. The corporation is also offering another 10,500
acres, which will be made part of the Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge
while relinquishing another 5,400 acres of their ANCSA land in the
Refuge.
The only land, which will leave Federal ownership in the area, is
approximately 206 acres for a narrow road to connect the existing road
from King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport. The route and alignment of the
road, within the corridor established by the bill, will be determined
through an inclusive, cooperative planning process.
It has been suggested by some that we should not reopen this issue--
it has always been so controversial. People who fought this battle
before, and still have the scars to prove it, were told that putting a
road in a national wildlife refuge creates a bad precedent. I have been
warned that every environmental group in the Nation will line up
against me if I pursue the exchange.
That may be true but this is how I see it. In the 25 years that have
passed since the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act,
ANILCA, became law, I think most Alaskans have come to appreciate the
value of setting aside land in Alaska for preservation. That
appreciation took time. Many Alaskans, as you know, resisted ANILCA.
In return, it is appropriate for Alaskans to expect the conservation
system units to be good neighbors to the aboriginal communities that
they border. That hasn't always been the case. The Aleut people of King
Cove inhabited their lands long before there was an Izembek National
Wildlife Refuge. The King Cove people steadfastly maintain that they
were not consulted before the decision was made to make the land that
stands between their community and the airport a wilderness. It is
their contention that thousands of others across the United States,
Canada, and Europe were invited by the Federal Govermment to make their
views known in this process, yet they were denied a voice in this most
crucial decision affecting their native homeland.
To me the King Cove road isn't just a matter of transportation. It is
a matter of respect for Native people. That is why I am willing to take
up this cause on behalf of the Native people of King Cove. I ask my
colleagues to join with me and with the Aleut people of King Cove to
make their dream of a road to the airport, something that those in the
Lower 48 take for granted, a reality.
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. 1680
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 ``Izembek and Alaska Peninsula
Refuge and Wilderness Enhancement Act of 2007''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) King Cove, Alaska, is--
(A) located 625 air miles from Anchorage, Alaska, on the
south side of the Alaska Peninsula, on a sand spit fronting
Deer Passage and Deer Island;
(B) accessible only by air and water; and
(C) 1 of the most geographically isolated areas of the
State of Alaska;
(2) constant adverse weather and limiting physical
topography make traveling in and out of King Cove directly by
air dangerous and impractical much of the time;
(3) King Cove is the homeland of Aleut people who--
(A) are federally recognized as indigenous peoples of the
United States;
(B) have fished, hunted, and subsisted in King Cove for
over 4,000 years; and
(C) refer to the King Cove community as ``Agdaagux'';
(4) the Agdaagux Tribal Council, which is the federally
recognized tribal government for King Cove, recognizes that
most of residents of King Cove are direct descendants of the
original Aleut inhabitants;
(5) in the 1940s, an airport capable of access by jets was
constructed by the United States Army at Cold Bay, which is
approximately 25 surface miles north of King Cove, to support
World War II related national security needs;
(6) while the Cold Bay Airport, which is now a civilian
airport operated by the State of Alaska, is the lifeline for
the King Cove people to the outside world, particularly for
the life, safety, and health needs of the indigenous
residents, there is no surface access between King Cove and
the airport;
(7) nearly all of the land between King Cove and Cold Bay
is--
(A) owned by the Federal Government as part of the Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge; and
(B) managed as wilderness; and
(8) the Agdaagux Tribal Council--
(A) maintains that the Council and the indigenous Aleut
people of King Cove were not consulted before the land that
separates residents from the nearest all-weather airport was
designated as wilderness, even though approximately 1,292
people across the United States, Canada, and Europe--
(i) received notice of the potential designation; and
(ii) during 1969 and 1970, were expressly invited by the
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the predecessor of
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to participate
in the process of considering whether the land should be
managed as wilderness;
(B) regards the failure of the Federal Government to
consult with the Council and the indigenous Aleut people of
King Cove as a ``wrong and troubling action taken by the
federal government'';
(C) submits that dozens of King Cove residents have died or
suffered grave health consequences in the past 30 years
because the residents could not reach timely medical
assistance in Anchorage, Alaska, that can only be accessed
via the all-weather Cold Bay Airport; and
(D) has expressed the full endorsement and support of the
Council for the construction of a road between King Cove and
the Cold Bay Airport as an expression of, and commitment to,
self-determination for the Aleut people of King Cove who were
not consulted before the land vital to the survival of the
Aleut people of King Cove was designated as wilderness.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
(A) the approximately 206 acres of Federal land within the
Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in the State that is
depicted on the map as ``King Cove Road''; and
(B) the approximately 1,600 acres of Federal land that is
depicted on the map as ``Sitkinak Island''.
(2) Landowner.--The term ``landowner'' means--
(A) the State; and
(B) the other owners of the non-Federal land, including
King Cove Corporation.
(3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled
``Proposed Land Enhancements'' and dated June 2007.
(4) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means
the approximately 61,723 acres of non-Federal land authorized
to be added to the Refuges under this Act, as depicted on the
map.
(5) Refuge.--The term ``Refuge'' means each of the Izembek
National Wildlife Refuge and the Alaska Peninsula National
Wildlife Refuge in the State.
(6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(7) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Alaska.
SEC. 4. CONVEYANCE OF LAND.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the State
all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
the Federal land on--
(1) conveyance by the landowner to the Secretary of title
to the non-Federal land that is acceptable to the Secretary;
and
(2) certification by the Governor of the State that the
State-owned land at Kinzaroff Lagoon has been designated
under State law as a State refuge.
(b) Map.--
(1) Availability.--The map shall be on file and available
for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the
Secretary.
(2) Revised map.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
completion of the conveyance of Federal land and non-Federal
land under this section, the Secretary shall submit to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and
the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives a revised map that depicts the Federal land
and non-Federal land conveyed under this section.
(c) King Cove Road Conveyance.--
(1) In general.--The land described in section 3(1)(A)
shall be used for construction of a State road.
(2) Terms and conditions.--
(A) Cable barrier.--A road constructed under this
subsection shall include a cable barrier on each side of the
road, as described in the record of decision entitled
``Mitigation Measure MM-11, King Cove Access Project Final
Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision'' and dated
January 22, 2004.
(B) Support facilities.--Support facilities for a road
constructed under this subsection shall not be located on
federally owned land in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.
(3) Cooperative right-of-way planning process.--
(A) In general.--On request of the State, the Secretary, in
cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation, the State,
the Agdaagux Tribal Council, the Aleutians East Borough, the
City of King Cove, and the King Cove Corporation, shall
undertake a process to determine the route for the road
required
[[Page S8241]]
to be constructed under paragraph (1) within the corridor
that is depicted on the map as ``King Cove Road''.
(B) Deadline.--Not later than 18 months after the date on
which the State submits a request under subparagraph (A), the
Secretary shall complete the planning process required under
that subparagraph.
(C) Compatibility.--The route for the road recommended by
the Secretary under this paragraph shall be considered to be
compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was
established.
(D) Construction.--Construction of the road along the route
recommended by the Secretary under this paragraph is
authorized in accordance with this Act.
(4) Reconveyance.--The Secretary shall, on receipt of a
written request from the State or the King Cove Corporation,
immediately reconvey the applicable non-Federal land to the
appropriate landowner that contributed the land if--
(A) a preliminary or permanent injunction is entered by a
court of competent jurisdiction enjoining construction or use
of the road; or
(B) the State or the King Cove Corporation determines
before construction of the road that the road cannot be
feasibly constructed or maintained.
(d) Applicable Law.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance of Federal land and non-
Federal land shall not be subject to any requirements for
valuation, appraisal, and equalization under any other
Federal law.
(2) ANCSA.--The use of existing roads and the construction
of new roads on King Cove Corporation land to access the road
authorized under this Act shall be considered--
(A) to be consistent with subsection (g) of section 22 of
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1621) and
any patents issued under that subsection; and
(B) not to interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge
was established.
(e) Notice.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee
on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives notice
of the completion of the conveyance of Federal land and non-
Federal land under this section.
(f) Designation of Wilderness.--On conveyance of the non-
Federal land to the Secretary, the approximately 45,493 acres
of land generally depicted on the map entitled ``Wilderness
additions to Izembek and Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuges''
and dated June 2007, shall be designated as wilderness.
(g) Administration.--The Secretary shall administer the
non-Federal land acquired under this Act--
(1) in accordance with the laws generally applicable to
units of the National Refuge System;
(2) as wilderness, in accordance with the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); and
(3) subject to valid existing rights.
______
By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
S. 1681. A bill to provide for a paid family and medical leave
insurance program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Family Leave
Insurance Act of 2007 and especially pleased to be joined by my
colleague Senator Stevens. This bill, which would provide 8 weeks of
paid benefits to workers who take time off for reasons allowed under
the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, is an important step in
continuing to help our Nation's workers to be both productive employees
and responsible family members.
Before the FMLA, workers had no guarantee that their jobs would still
be there if they took time off to care for loved ones or recover from
illness themselves. Millions of Americans were forced into a
challenging dilemma: care for their families, or provide for them.
That is why I worked to create the FMLA in 1985, and that is why I
fought for its passage through 7 years of obstruction and two
presidential vetoes, pointing out that its denial of guaranteed leave
put America virtually alone among nations, industrialized or otherwise.
Finally, on February 5, 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act was
signed into law. Under its protection, eligible workers receive 12
weeks of leave every year, so that they can watch over a newborn or
adopted baby, or help a parent through an illness, or get better
themselves, knowing that their job will be there when they return. To
date, more than 50 million Americans have taken that opportunity. The
FMLA isn't just good for American workers, it is good for American
business. Ninety percent of employers have reported that the FMLA had a
neutral or positive effect on profits.
Today, the idea of guaranteed leave seems obvious; but now, it is
time to take another step in making that hard-won leave a possibility
for even more Americans. In the 21st century, working families should
not have to give up the leave they earned because they cannot afford
it, they deserve paid leave.
Why do we offer nothing, when the European standard is 14 paid weeks?
Why are we one of only four countries in the world to deny paid
maternity leave, leaving us in the company of Swaziland, Liberia, and
Papua New Guinea?
For every worker who can weather a day without pay, three more can't
afford the loss. To these workers, unpaid leave is a hollow promise, an
impossible choice between the family they love and the job they need.
I believe it is a choice that no American should ever again be forced
to make. When Congress passed and President Clinton signed the FMLA, we
affirmed that health and family should never have to suffer because of
the demands of work. I fail to see why that right should only be
afforded to Americans in a certain income bracket.
With the introduction of the Family Leave Insurance Act, we take a
huge step toward making family leave a possibility for all Americans.
Its 8 weeks of paid leave per year will apply to employees who need
time off for any of the reasons included in the FMLA: birth of a child;
placement of an adopted or foster child; the care for a child, parent,
or spouse with a serious medical condition; or recovery from a serious
personal medical condition. Benefits will be tiered on the basis of
wages, with the tiers themselves indexed to inflation. This structure
will provide the greatest benefit to those with the lowest salaries.
And workers who are covered by the FMLA will retain their health
insurance and will be guaranteed a return to their job, or a comparable
position, on their return.
The act creates a new Family Leave Insurance Fund into which premiums
are paid, to finance benefit payments, allowing stakeholders to pool
risk and lower costs, and funded through small, shared premiums. Those
costs will be shared by employees and employers; the Federal Government
will pay for administrative costs. Participation will be mandatory for
all businesses with 50 employees or more; those with fewer employees
can choose to participate and receive a discount on premium payments.
To reduce administrative burdens for employers and employees, employers
will pay leave benefits to employees through their regular payroll,
with prompt reimbursement from the Family Leave Insurance Fund.
We know that many employers, both large and small, offer very
generous leave policies, exemplifying best business practices. Through
this legislation, we seek to support companies who offer paid leave so
they continue to do so, and to create an incentive for smaller
companies to offer paid leave. A provision in the bill allows employers
to maintain their own paid leave plan, if it is certified to be
equivalent or better to the plan in this legislation.
Our bill will also allow States flexibility in maintaining their
existing programs. Several States already have systems to provide paid
family and medical leave, and several more have legislation pending to
create such systems. In recent years, more than 25 States have
introduced legislation to create paid leave programs. The landscape in
the States is changing quickly on policies for working families and
there are complex issues around the interaction between this
legislation, State programs and employers within States. We look
forward to collaborating with States so they can maintain maximum
flexibility, and provide the best leave policy, as the bill moves
forward.
As the FMLA has demonstrated so strongly, family leave benefits both
workers and businesses, and that is certainly the case for paid family
leave. Paid leave cuts down on employee turnover and the high costs of
training replacements; it has been shown to raise morale and
productivity; and it levels the playing field by allowing small
businesses to adopt a benefit that many of their larger competitors
have been offering for years.
Our changing workforce demonstrates the strong need for paid family
and medical leave. Almost 80 percent of the workforce is made up of
[[Page S8242]]
dual earner couples, who struggle to find time to care for their sick
children or their own illnesses. In addition, approximately 40 percent
of the workforce will be caring for older parents by 2010. For these
and many other reasons, this bill is the right policy.
The FMLA established the principle, and now the Family Leave
Insurance Act puts it into practice and into reach for more Americans.
Its passage will bring America closer to the world's standards, help
our businesses, and protect our workforce. In the lives of millions of
Americans, it will help reduce the dilemma of balancing work and
family. Let us continue to work together: Government, business and
employees need to continue this conversation and improve our policies
for working families and individual employees who need paid leave. I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Dodd and I
introduced the Family Leave Insurance Act of 2007, which builds upon
important protections established by the Family and Medical Leave Act,
FMLA, of 1993.
Our legislation would provide 8 weeks of paid benefits to private and
Federal employees who take leave for reasons permitted by the FMLA.
These include a serious health condition; care for a critically ill
child, spouse, or parent; and the birth or adoption of a child.
Benefits would be provided to workers based on their annual income
level. As an example, those earning less than $20,000 per year would
receive 100 percent of their benefits, while those earning $60,000 to
$97,000 would receive 40 percent. This scaled approach has two
advantages: it will keep program costs low, and offer the greatest help
to those who need it most.
In the past, many have expressed apprehension over the costs
associated with family and medical leave. These concerns are valid, and
steps must be taken to ensure neither employees nor employers are
burdened by this or any similar program.
As introduced, this insurance fund would be financed by employees,
employers, and the Federal Government. Employees would contribute 0.2
percent of their earnings, employers would match this percentage, and
the Federal Government would pay any administrative expenses not
covered by those payments. In truth, these costs are minimal for all
involved. A worker who receives a $1,000 paycheck would disburse just
$2 to receive full coverage.
While my support for this bill is not absolute, it does address an
important shortcoming of the FMLA: employees who need leave often do
not take time off because they simply cannot afford to do so. Senator
Dodd has rightly described this as a terrible choice for individuals--
one which forces a decision between ``the job they need and the family
they love.'' Those of us in the Senate must do everything we can to
help hard-working American families, and this bill represents a
significant first step in those efforts.
As the father of six children, I deeply understand the challenges
families face following childbirth, in times of sickness, and when
loved ones fall ill. In Alaska, the majority of parents hold full-time
jobs outside the home, which often makes this pressure even more
intense.
I commend Senator Dodd for his continued leadership on this issue,
and look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and leaders in
the business community to improve this bill as it moves through the
legislative process.
____________________