[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 125 (Wednesday, August 1, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10606-S10627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENT ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Ms. Collins, Mr. Durbin, Mr. 
        Kennedy, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. Casey):
  S. 1914. A bill to require a comprehensive nuclear posture review, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Armed Services.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins, 
Senator Durbin, Senator Feingold, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Casey to 
introduce legislation to authorize a comprehensive review of our 
nuclear weapons policy and posture.
  Before we ramp up funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead 
program as the administration has requested, we should have a clear, 
bipartisan consensus on the role nuclear weapons will play in our 
national security strategy and the impact they will have on our nuclear 
nonproliferation efforts.
  The Nuclear Policy and Posture Review Act of 2007 does three things.
  First, it authorizes the President to conduct a nuclear policy review 
to consider a range of possible roles of nuclear weapons in U.S. 
security policy. The administration may reach out to outside experts 
and conduct public hearings to get a wide range of views. The policy 
review will provide options and recommendations for a nuclear posture 
review.
  This report is due on September 1, 2009.
  Second, following the completion of the nuclear policy review, it 
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review 
of the nuclear posture of the U.S. to clarify U.S. nuclear deterrence 
policy and strategy. This report is due March 1, 2010.

[[Page S10607]]

  Finally, it zeros out funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead 
program until the policy review and posture review reports have been 
submitted to Congress.
  In his testimony on March 29, 2007, before the House Energy & Water 
Appropriations Subcommittee, former Senator Sam Nunn, Chairman of 
Nuclear Threat Initiative, noted that:

       On the [Reliable Replacement Warhead] itself, if Congress 
     gives a green light to this program in our current world 
     environment, I believe that this will be: misunderstood by 
     our allies; exploited by our adversaries; complicate our work 
     to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons and . . . 
     make resolution of the Iran and North Korea challenges all 
     the more difficult.

  I could not agree more.
  Indeed, I remain deeply concerned about this administration's nuclear 
weapons policy.
  As a U.S. Senator, I have worked with colleagues in the House and 
Senate to stop the re-opening of the nuclear door and the development 
of new nuclear weapons.
  Together, we have eliminated funding for the Advanced Concepts 
Initiative, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and the Modern Pit 
Facility.
  These were consequential victories but the fight is far from over.
  For fiscal year 2008, the administration requested $118 million for 
the Reliable Replacement Warhead program; $88 million in the National 
Nuclear Security administration's budget and $30 million in the 
Department of Defense's budget.
  These funds would be used for Phase 2A activities: design definition 
and cost study.
  This would represent approximately a four-fold increase over fiscal 
year 2007 funding of $24.7 million.
  The House, however, rejected the administration's request and zeroed 
out funding for RRW in its fiscal year 2008 Energy and Water 
Development Appropriations bill. In its report accompanying the 
legislation, the House cited the lack of a definitive nuclear weapons 
policy review as a key reason for withholding funding for what will be 
a costly new nuclear warhead program. It stated:

       The lack of any definitive analysis or strategic assessment 
     defining the objectives of a future nuclear stockpile makes 
     it impossible to weigh the relative merits of investing 
     billions of taxpayer dollars in new nuclear weapon production 
     activities when the United States is facing the problem of 
     having too large a stockpile as a Cold War legacy. Currently, 
     there exists no convincing rationale for maintaining the 
     large number of existing Cold War nuclear weapons, much less 
     producing additional warheads, or for the DoD requirements 
     that drive the management of the DOE nuclear weapons complex.

  While the Senate bill did not follow suit, it did cut $22 million 
from the administration's request, for a total of $66 million, and 
restricted activities to Phase 2A.
  I believe we can match the House's action and this bill would do just 
that.
  The administration is clearly getting nervous about the prospects for 
funding for RRW.
  On Wednesday, the Secretaries of Energy, Defense, and State released 
a 4-page white paper on nuclear weapons strategy: ``National Security 
and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century''. It 
affirmed the importance of maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent and 
sought to justify funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. 
Among other things, it stated that the Reliable Replacement Warhead 
program is critical to sustaining long-term confidence in the nuclear 
stockpile and will help reduce the stockpile and move us away from 
nuclear testing; and any delay to the program will force the U.S. to 
maintain a larger stockpile, invest in costly and risky Life Extension 
Programs, and increase the likelihood that we will have to resume 
nuclear testing.
  These arguments simply do not stand up to scrutiny.
  Indeed the evidence clearly shows that there is no need to rush 
forward with increased funding for RRW. Let us take a close look at the 
status of our nuclear weapons arsenal.
  Are there currently problems with the safety and reliability of our 
nuclear arsenal?
  No, for each of the past 11 years the Secretary of Energy and 
Secretary of Defense have certified that the nuclear stockpile is safe 
and reliable.
  Has the Pentagon asked for a new warhead for new missions?
  No, there is no new military requirement to replace existing, well-
tested warheads.
  What about the plutonium pit, the ``trigger'' of a nuclear weapon? In 
past years, the administration requested funding for a Modern Pit 
Facility that could build up to 450 pits a year arguing that the pits 
in our current stockpile were reaching the end of their life-span.

  Is our stockpile at risk due to aging pits?
  No, a December 2006 report by the National Laboratories showed that 
plutonium pits have a life-span of at least 85 years, and possibly up 
to 100 years.
  That report validated Congressional action to eliminate funding for 
the Modern Pit Facility. I am pleased that the administration listened 
and did not request funding for the facility in fiscal year 2007 and 
fiscal year 2008.
  Are we at risk for resuming nuclear testing?
  No, as I have argued our stockpile is safe and secure and will 
clearly remain so for the foreseeable future.
  If the likelihood of resuming nuclear testing is increasing it is due 
to the fact that the administration has, in past years, requested 
funding to lower the time to test readiness at the Nevada test site 
from 24-36 months to 18 months and, above all, refused to support 
ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, CTBT.
  What about costs? I find it interesting that the administration would 
cite the costs of successful Life Extension Programs as a reason to 
ramp up funding for the RRW.
  Has the administration shared with us what it will cost to replace 
the warhead on our deployed nuclear arsenal with a new Reliable 
Replacement Warhead?
  The answer is no. The administration has remained silent about when 
the supposed cost savings from RRW will ultimately kick in.
  In fact, the development of a new nuclear warhead will likely add 
billions of dollars to the American taxpayer's bill at a time when, as 
noted above, the stockpile is safe and reliable. As the House Energy 
and Water Appropriations report argued:

       Under any realistic future U.S. nuclear defense scenario, 
     the existing legacy stockpile will continue to provide the 
     nation's nuclear deterrent for well over the next two to 
     three decades. The effort by the NNSA to apply urgency to 
     developing a significant production capacity for the RRW 
     while lacking any urgency to rationalize an oversized complex 
     appears to mean simply more costs to the American taxpayer.

  Before we move any further with this program which would add a new 
warhead to the stockpile, we should have a better understanding of the 
role nuclear weapons will play in our security policy in a post-Cold 
War and post 9/11 world.
  If we as a country are going to move away from massive stockpiles of 
nuclear weapons and explore more conventional alternatives, does it 
make sense to add a new warhead to the stockpile?
  If we are committed to strengthening the Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Treaty and stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons, what impact 
would a Reliable Replacement Warhead have on those efforts?
  If the Stockpile Stewardship Program and the Life Extension Program 
can certify the safety and the reliability of our existing nuclear 
stockpile, should we shift resources from RRW to more pressing 
concerns?
  It is common sense to ask these questions and engage in comprehensive 
review and debate about these options before we make the decision on 
manufacturing new warheads.
  As it stands now, we are addressing this issue backwards and behind 
closed doors.
  That is, we are rushing to develop a new warhead without an 
understanding of the role it will play in our nuclear weapons policy 
and national security strategy and without public input that will lead 
to a bipartisan policy.
  Let us be clear: a rushed, four page white paper is simply not 
sufficient to answer these questions and make decisions about 
developing new nuclear warheads.
  The administration has promised a more detailed report but its haste 
to put out this paper suggests that it is more intent on rushing the 
development of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program than in taking 
a sober,

[[Page S10608]]

unbiased look at our nuclear weapons policy and posture.
  A lack of a substantive debate and review means we are not paying 
sufficient attention to the potential negative consequences of RRW.
  Speeding up the development of a new nuclear warhead may send the 
wrong message to Iran; North Korea; and other would-be nuclear weapon 
states and encourage the very proliferation we are trying to prevent.
  What to us may appear to be a safer, more reliable weapon could 
appear to others to be a new weapon with new missions and a violation 
of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
  The American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a 
report last month acknowledging that a Reliable Replacement Warhead 
``could lead to a final selected design that is certifiable without a 
nuclear test.''
  Yet, the report also concluded that absent a comprehensive review of 
nuclear policy and stockpile needs, the purpose and intention of RRW 
could be widely misinterpreted abroad.
  Pointing out that there has been no high level statement about 
nuclear weapons policy since the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, it called 
on the administration to develop a bipartisan policy on the future of 
nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons policy before moving ahead with 
RRW. It stated:

       In the absence of a clear nuclear posture, many 
     interpretations are possible [about U.S. nuclear weapons 
     policy] and the lack of a national understanding and 
     consensus on the role of U.S. nuclear weapons puts any new 
     approach at considerable risk at home and abroad. For 
     example, an RRW plan that emphasizes the goal of sustaining 
     the deterrent without nuclear testing could be perceived 
     quite differently from one that focuses on future flexibility 
     to develop and deploy nuclear weapons for new military 
     mission.

  It goes on to state:

       . . . nuclear weapons are ultimately an instrument of 
     policy and strategy rather than of war fighting, and only 
     with the leadership of the president can there be major 
     changes in that instrument.

  Unfortunately we have not seen such leadership from this 
administration.
  Because it pursued the development of low-yield nuclear weapons and a 
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, because it sought to lower the time-
to-test readiness at the Nevada test site from 24-26 months to 18 
months, because it sought to build a Modern Pit Facility that could 
produce up to 450 pits a year, this administration has lost the 
credibility to take a fresh and open look at nuclear weapons policy and 
posture.
  Only a new administration, free from the constraints of the heated 
debates of the past, will have the authority to conduct a comprehensive 
review of our nuclear weapons policy and posture.
  A bipartisan consensus on this policy is essential. It will let the 
world know exactly where we stand on these important issues and help 
clear up any confusion about our intentions.
  Friend and foe alike will know that regardless of who holds power in 
Congress or the White House, the role of nuclear weapons in our 
security strategy will not change.
  It will strengthen our efforts to convince other states to forego the 
development of nuclear weapons and make the world safer from the threat 
of nuclear war.
  I believe that bipartisan policy is beginning to emerge.
  In a January 4, 2007 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, ``A World Free 
of Nuclear Weapons'', George Schultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, 
and Sam Nunn laid out a compelling vision for a world free of the 
threat of nuclear war.
  They laid a set of common sense steps the U.S. and other nuclear 
weapon states can take to make this happen including: taking nuclear 
weapons off high-alert status; substantially reducing the size of 
nuclear stockpiles; eliminating short-ranged nuclear weapons; ratifying 
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; securing all stocks of weapons, 
weapons-usable plutonium, and highly enriched uranium around the world; 
getting control of the uranium enrichment process; stopping production 
of fissile material for nuclear weapons globally; resolving regional 
confrontations that encourage the development of nuclear weapons.
  They conclude:

       Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear 
     weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal 
     would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative 
     consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could 
     have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future 
     generations. Without that bold vision, the actions will not 
     be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the 
     vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible.

  We should pay close attention to these words.
  In conclusion, let me say that there is a big difference between an 
RRW program that increases the reliability of the existing stockpile 
and one that leads to a resumption of nuclear testing.
  Congress should ask the tough questions to ensure that this is not a 
back door to new nuclear weapons with new missions and new rounds of 
testing.
  I firmly believe we should zero out for the Reliable Replacement 
Warhead program until the next administration takes a serious look at 
our nuclear weapons programs and issues a bipartisan policy on the size 
of the future stockpile, testing, and nuclear nonproliferation efforts.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration 
to craft that sensible, bipartisan nuclear weapons policy that will 
make Americans safe and allow us to reclaim a leadership role in the 
fight against nuclear proliferation.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
placed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1914

       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 ``Nuclear Policy and Posture 
     Review Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. REVISED NUCLEAR POLICY REVIEW AND NUCLEAR POSTURE 
                   REVIEW.

       (a) Nuclear Policy Review.--
       (1) In general.--The President shall conduct a nuclear 
     policy review to consider a range of options on the role of 
     nuclear weapons in United States security policy. The policy 
     review shall be coordinated by the National Security Advisor 
     and shall include the Secretary of State, the Secretary of 
     Energy, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National 
     Intelligence, the Director of the Office of Management and 
     Budget, and the Director of the Office of Science and 
     Technology Policy.
       (2) Scope of review.--The nuclear policy review conducted 
     under paragraph (1) shall--
       (A) address the role and value of nuclear weapons in the 
     current global security environment;
       (B) set forth short-term and long-term objectives of United 
     States nuclear weapons policy;
       (C) consider the contributions of the Treaty on the Non-
     Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, 
     and Moscow July 1, 1968 (commonly referred to as the 
     ``Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty''), to United States 
     national security, and include recommendations for 
     strengthening the Treaty;
       (D) explore the relationship between the nuclear policy of 
     the United States and nonproliferation and arms control 
     objectives and international treaty obligations, including 
     obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 
     Treaty;
       (E) determine the role and effectiveness of the Treaty 
     Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet 
     Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of 
     Strategic Offensive Arms, signed at Moscow July 31, 1991 
     (commonly referred to as the ``START I Treaty''), and the 
     Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian 
     Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions, done at Moscow 
     May 24, 2002 (commonly referred to as the ``Moscow Treaty''), 
     in achieving the national security and nonproliferation goals 
     of the United States and in implementing United States 
     military strategy, and describe the elements of a recommended 
     successor treaty, including verification provisions; and
       (F) provide policy guidance and make recommendations for 
     the nuclear posture review to be conducted under subsection 
     (b).
       (3) Outside input.--The policy review shall include 
     contributions from outside experts and, to the extent 
     possible, shall include public meetings to consider a range 
     of views.
       (b) Nuclear Posture Review.--
       (1) In general.--Following completion of the nuclear policy 
     review under subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall 
     conduct a comprehensive review of the nuclear posture of the 
     United States to clarify United States nuclear deterrence 
     policy and strategy. The Secretary shall conduct the review 
     in collaboration with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary 
     of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the 
     National Security Advisor.
       (2) Elements of review.--The nuclear posture review 
     conducted under paragraph (1) shall include the following 
     elements:

[[Page S10609]]

       (A) The role of nuclear forces in United States military 
     strategy, planning, and programming, including the extent to 
     which conventional forces can assume roles previously assumed 
     by nuclear forces.
       (B) The policy requirements and objectives for the United 
     States to maintain a safe, reliable, and credible nuclear 
     deterrence posture, in light of the guidance provided by the 
     nuclear policy review conducted under subsection (a).
       (C) The targeting strategy required to implement 
     effectively the guidance provided by the nuclear policy 
     review conducted under subsection (a).
       (D) The levels and composition of the nuclear delivery 
     systems that will be required for implementing the United 
     States national and military strategy, including any plans 
     for removing, replacing, or modifying existing systems.
       (E) The nuclear weapons complex that will be required for 
     implementing the United States national and military 
     strategy, including any plans to consolidate, modernize, or 
     modify the complex.
       (F) The active and inactive nuclear weapons stockpile that 
     will be required for implementing the United States national 
     and military strategy, including any plans for replacing or 
     modifying warheads.
       (G) An account of the different nuclear postures considered 
     in the review and the reasoning for the selection of the 
     nuclear posture.
       (c) Reports Required.--
       (1) Nuclear policy review.--Not later than September 1, 
     2009, the President shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     results of the nuclear policy review conducted under 
     subsection (a).
       (2) Nuclear posture review.--Not later than March 1, 2010, 
     the President shall submit to Congress a report on the 
     results of the nuclear posture review conducted under 
     subsection (b).
       (3) Form.--Each report required under this subsection shall 
     be submitted in unclassified form, but may contain a 
     classified annex.
       (d) Sense of Congress on Use of Nuclear Posture Review.--It 
     is the sense of Congress that the nuclear policy review 
     conducted under subsection (a) should be used as the basis 
     for establishing future strategic arms control objectives and 
     negotiating positions of the United States.
       (e) Restriction on Funding of Reliable Replacement Warhead 
     Program.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available for the 
     Reliable Replacement Warhead Program for fiscal years 2008, 
     2009, or 2010 until the reports required under subsection (c) 
     have been submitted to Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. SPECTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Casey):
  S. 1918. A bill to amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets 
Act of 1968 to expand the definition of firefighter to include 
apprentices and trainees, regardless of age or duty limitations; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I seek recognition today to introduce the 
Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Apprentice Act, a bill designed 
to correct a flaw in the current definition of ``firefighter'' under 
the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act.
  On May 4, 2002, 14-year-old Christopher Kangas was struck by a car 
and killed while he was riding his bicycle in Brookhaven, PA. The local 
authorities later confirmed that Christopher was out on his bike that 
day for an important reason: Chris Kangas was a junior firefighter, and 
he was responding to a fire emergency.
  Under Pennsylvania law, 14- and 15-year-olds such as Christopher are 
permitted to serve as volunteer junior firefighters. While they are not 
allowed to operate heavy machinery or enter burning buildings, the law 
permits them to fill a number of important support roles, such as 
providing first aid. In addition, the junior firefighter program is an 
important recruitment tool for fire stations throughout the 
Commonwealth. In fact, prior to his death Christopher had received 58 
hours of training that would have served him well when he graduated 
from the junior program.
  It is clear to me that Christopher Kangas was a firefighter killed in 
the line of duty. Were it not for his status as a junior firefighter 
and his prompt response to a fire alarm, Christopher would still be 
alive today. Indeed, the Brookhaven Fire Department, Brookhaven 
Borough, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have all recognized 
Christopher as a fallen public safety officer and provided the 
appropriate death benefits to his family.
  Yet, while those closest to the tragedy have recognized Christopher 
as a fallen firefighter, the Federal Government has not. The U.S. 
Department of Justice, DOJ, determined that Christopher Kangas was not 
eligible for benefits because he was not acting within a narrow range 
of duties at the time of his death that are the measured criteria to be 
considered a ``firefighter,'' and therefore, was not a ``public safety 
officer'' for purposes of the Public Safety Officer Benefits Act. In 
order to be eligible for benefits under the Public Safety Officer 
Benefits Act, an officer's death must be considered the ``direct and 
proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.'' 
Although the United States Code includes firefighters in the definition 
of ``public safety officer'' and specifies a firefighter as ``an 
individual serving as an officially-recognized or designated member of 
a legally-organized volunteer fire department;'' it offers no 
definition of ``line of duty''. DOJ had to defer to an arbitrarily 
narrow definition of ``line of duty,'' as described in the Code of 
Federal Regulations that restricts activities to the ``suppression of 
fires.'' DOJ decided that the only people who qualify as firefighters 
are those who play the starring role of operating a hose on a ladder or 
entering a burning building. According to this interpretation, those, 
such as junior firefighters, who play the essential supporting roles of 
directing traffic, performing first aid, or dispatching fire vehicles 
do not contribute to the act of suppressing the fire.
  Furthermore, Christopher's family has been pursuing this benefit 
through our court system. The U.S. Federal Claims Court ruled in favor 
of the Kangas family ordering the Department of Justice to pay 
$250,000. However, the Department appealed the decision which the 
Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit upheld by concluding the Court of 
Federal Claims' decision failed to defer to DOJ's interpretation of 
``firefighter.''
  Any firefighter will tell you that there are many important roles to 
play in fighting a fire beyond operating the hoses and ladders. 
Firefighting is a team effort, and everyone in the Brookhaven Fire 
Department viewed young Christopher as a full member of their team.
  As a result of this DOJ determination, Christopher's family cannot 
receive a $267,000 Federal line-of-duty benefit. In addition, 
Christopher is barred from taking his rightful place on the National 
Fallen Firefighters Memorial in Emmitsburg, MD. For a young man who 
dreamed of being a firefighter and gave his life rushing to a fire, 
keeping him off of the memorial is a grave injustice.
  The bill I introduce today will ensure that the Federal Government 
will recognize Christopher Kangas and others like him as firefighters. 
The bill clarifies that all firefighters will be recognized as such 
``regardless of age, status as an apprentice or trainee, or duty 
restrictions imposed because of age or status as an apprentice or 
trainee.'' The bill applies retroactively back to May 4, 2002, the date 
of Christopher Kangas' death.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and I 
yield the floor.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, by Mr. Hatch, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 1919. A bill to establish trade enforcement priorities for the 
United States, to strengthen the provisions relating to trade remedies, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Hatch to 
introduce the Trade Enforcement Act of 2007. This bill will provide the 
administration additional tools, resources, and accountability to 
enforce international trade agreements abroad and domestic trade remedy 
laws here at home.
  Over 400 years ago, William Shakespeare wrote ``The law hath not been 
dead, though it hath slept.'' The same could be said of our trade 
enforcement laws today.
  The administration has many tools at its disposal to enforce 
international trade agreements. It can file dispute settlement cases in 
the World Trade Organization, WTO. It has Section 301 to fight market 
access barriers. It has Special 301 to address intellectual property 
violations abroad. It has Section 421 to remedy Chinese import surges 
that cause injury here at home.
  But having these rules on the books is not enough. We need to enforce 
them.

[[Page S10610]]

  There is a very real sense among Americans that our trading partners 
do not play by the rules. And there is a very real sense that the U.S. 
Government is allowing them to get away with it.
  That is why I am introducing the Trade Enforcement Act of 2007--to 
ensure that the administration has the resources to enforce our 
existing trade laws, to provide political accountability when it does 
not, and to create new tools that address the enforcement priorities of 
American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service suppliers.
  This legislation bolsters enforcement of U.S. trade agreements in 
three important ways.
  First, it requires the U.S. Trade Representative, USTR, to dedicate 
more time to enforcement. The bill requires USTR to provide an annual 
report to Congress identifying the most significant barriers to U.S. 
companies abroad and to take enforcement action to resolve them. It 
also makes trade enforcement more accountable to Congress. The bill 
allows the Senate Finance Committee or the House Ways and Means 
Committee to require USTR to identify a specific barrier in its annual 
report. And, significantly, the bill creates a Senate-confirmed Chief 
Enforcement Officer at USTR to investigate and prosecute trade 
enforcement cases.
  Second, the bill addresses serious concerns that have been raised 
about the quality of recent World Trade Organization dispute settlement 
decisions. It does so by establishing a commission of retired judges 
and international trade law experts to review the decisions and 
determine whether they impose obligations on the U.S. that are not 
found in the text of the WTO agreements. The bill also prevents the 
administration from changing a regulation to comply with an adverse WTO 
decision until Congress receives the commission's report.
  Third, the bill ensures that other U.S. government agencies do not 
use foreign policy and other noneconomic rationales to block USTR from 
taking tough enforcement actions. It clarifies that while USTR must 
carefully consider any advice provided by the interagency trade 
organization established under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, it need 
not, and shall not, seek approval of its actions from the organization.
  The bill also bolsters enforcement of U.S. trade remedy laws in four 
important ways.
  First, the bill limits the President's discretion to deny relief in 
Section 421 cases to address Chinese import surges. This administration 
has utterly failed to use this trade remedy as Congress intended. It 
has denied relief in every case where the International Trade 
Commission, ITC, determined that relief was warranted. Our bill 
remedies this deficiency by requiring the President to proclaim any 
import relief that the ITC recommends unless the President finds, in 
extraordinary cases, that the relief would seriously harm our national 
security or would have an adverse impact on our economy that clearly 
and significantly outweighs the benefits. Congress may override the 
economic determination and reinstate the ITC's decision if it enacts a 
joint resolution of disapproval.
  Second, the bill makes it easier for U.S. companies to obtain relief 
from subsidized imports from certain countries. It clarifies that the 
Commerce Department may apply countervailing duties to nonmarket 
economies like China. The Commerce Department has long taken the 
position that our countervailing duty laws do not apply to nonmarket 
economies, and it has refused to do so until very recently. The bill 
closes this loophole and eliminates any remaining uncertainty.
  Third, the bill makes it easier for U.S. companies to obtain relief 
from subsidized and dumped imports from all countries by overriding the 
Federal Circuit's recent Bratsk decision. The bill provides that the 
ITC must make its injury determinations in antidumping and 
countervailing duty cases without regard to whether imports from other 
countries are likely to replace imports from the country under 
investigation.
  Fourth, the bill increases intellectual property expertise at the 
ITC. It authorizes the ITC to appoint hearing officers, rather than 
administrative law judges, ALJs, to take evidence and make initial 
decisions in intellectual property investigations under Section 337 of 
the Tariff Act of 1930. Unlike the current ALJs, the hearing officers 
would be required to have technical expertise and experience in 
intellectual property law.
  The overarching goal of this bill is, as Shakespeare might say, to 
``wake up'' our trade laws from their current slumber and ensure that 
the administration enforces them to the fullest extent. Our farmers, 
ranchers, and companies deserve nothing less.
  I therefore hope that my colleagues will support the Trade 
Enforcement Act of 2007.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID:
  S. 1920. A bill to award competitive grants to eligible partnerships 
to enable the partnerships to implement innovative strategies at the 
secondary school level to improve student achievement and prepare at-
risk students for postsecondary education and the workforce; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  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. 1920

       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 ``Getting Retention and 
     Diplomas Up Among Today's Enrolled Students Act'' or the 
     ``GRADUATES Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Since almost 90 percent of the fastest growing and best 
     paying jobs now require some postsecondary education, a 
     secondary school diploma and the skills to succeed in higher 
     education and the modern workplace are essential.
       (2) Only \1/3\ of all high school students in the United 
     States graduate in 4 years prepared for a 4-year institution 
     of higher education. Another \1/3\ graduate, but without the 
     skills and qualifications necessary for success in higher 
     education or the workplace, and the rest will not graduate 
     from high school in 4 years, if at all.
       (3) Dropouts from the class of 2006 will cost the United 
     States more that $309,000,000,000 in reduced earnings.
       (4) The Nation's failure to meet the increasing demand for 
     skilled workers means that American companies cannot fill a 
     large number of jobs. 81 percent of American manufacturing 
     companies report experiencing a moderate to severe shortage 
     of qualified workers.
       (5) International competition has made education a national 
     security issue. For example, the United States currently runs 
     a $30,000,000,000 advanced technology trade deficit with 
     China. Many other countries are developing the technology, 
     infrastructure, and knowledge base to export quality products 
     with inexpensive labor. The education system of the United 
     States should support critical thinking, creativity, and 
     innovative approaches to new opportunities, which are 
     commodities that cannot be outsourced.
       (6) As the bar for success continues to be raised, the 
     responsibility to engender these attributes with progressive 
     programs and original models lies squarely with the education 
     system. It is imperative that the United States develop and 
     implement new, innovative approaches to fully prepare every 
     student for the 21st century.
       (7) Realigning the education system to meet new, demanding 
     requirements and face intensifying competition requires 
     effective, systemic reform. Identifying effective, replicable 
     models that achieve this goal is a critical step towards 
     enhancing the prospects of all students entering the modern 
     workforce.

     SEC. 3. SECONDARY SCHOOL INNOVATION FUND.

       (a) Secondary School Innovation Fund.--Title I of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     6301 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating part I as part J; and
       (2) by inserting after section 1830 the following:

               ``PART I--SECONDARY SCHOOL INNOVATION FUND

     ``SEC. 1851. PURPOSES.

       ``The purposes of this part are--
       ``(1) to improve the achievement of at-risk secondary 
     school students and prepare such students for higher 
     education and the workforce;
       ``(2) to create evidence-based, replicable models of 
     innovation in secondary schools at the State and local level; 
     and
       ``(3) to support partnerships to create and inform 
     innovation at the State and local level to improve learning 
     outcomes and transitions for secondary school students.

     ``SEC. 1852. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Eligible partnership.--The term `eligible 
     partnership' means a partnership that includes--

[[Page S10611]]

       ``(A) not less than 1--
       ``(i) State educational agency; or
       ``(ii) local educational agency that is eligible for 
     assistance under part A; and
       ``(B) not less than 1--
       ``(i) institution of higher education;
       ``(ii) nonprofit organization;
       ``(iii) community-based organization;
       ``(iv) business; or
       ``(v) school development organization or intermediary.
       ``(2) Eligible school.--The term `eligible school' means a 
     public secondary school served by a local educational agency 
     that is eligible for assistance under part A.
       ``(3) High school.--The term `high school' means a public 
     school, including a public charter high school, that provides 
     education in any grade beginning with grade 9 and ending with 
     grade 12, as determined under State law.
       ``(4) Middle school.--The term `middle school' means a 
     public school, including a public charter middle school, that 
     provides middle education in any grade beginning with grade 5 
     and ending with grade 8, as determined under State law.
       ``(5) Secondary school.--The term `secondary school' has 
     the meaning given the term in section 9101.

     ``SEC. 1853. SECONDARY SCHOOL INNOVATION FUND.

       ``(a) Program Authorized.--
       ``(1) Grants to eligible partnerships.--The Secretary is 
     authorized to award grants, on a competitive basis, to 
     eligible partnerships to enable the eligible partnerships to 
     pay the Federal share of the costs of implementing innovative 
     strategies described in subsection (f) to improve the 
     achievement of at-risk students in secondary schools.
       ``(2) Subgrants to eligible schools.--An eligible 
     partnership that receives a grant under this part may use the 
     grant funds to award a subgrant to an eligible school to 
     enable the eligible school to implement innovative strategies 
     described in subsection (f) to improve the achievement of at-
     risk students at the eligible school.
       ``(b) Reservation of Funds.--The Secretary shall reserve 5 
     percent of the amounts appropriated under this part for a 
     fiscal year for the evaluation described in subsection (h).
       ``(c) Application.--
       ``(1) In general.--An eligible partnership desiring a grant 
     under this part shall submit an application to the Secretary 
     at such time, in such manner, and containing such information 
     as the Secretary may require.
       ``(2) Contents.--The application described in paragraph (1) 
     shall include--
       ``(A) a description of the eligible partnership, the 
     partners forming the eligible partnership, and the roles and 
     responsibilities of each partner, and a demonstration of each 
     partner's capacity to support the outlined roles and 
     responsibilities;
       ``(B) a description of how funds will be used to improve 
     the achievement of at-risk students in secondary schools;
       ``(C) a description of how the activities funded by the 
     grant will be innovative, systemic, evidence-based, and 
     replicable;
       ``(D) a description of each subgrant the eligible 
     partnership will award to an eligible school, including a 
     description of the eligible school; and
       ``(E) a description of how the eligible partnership will 
     measure and report improvement using the data collected under 
     subsection (g) and additional indicators of improvement 
     proposed by the partnership, such as student attendance or 
     participation, credit accumulation rates, core course failure 
     rates, college enrollment and persistence rates, or number or 
     percentage of students taking Advanced Placement (AP), 
     International Baccalaureate (IB), or other postsecondary 
     education courses, rigorous postsecondary education 
     preparatory courses, or workforce apprenticeship and training 
     programs.
       ``(d) Application Review and Award Basis.--
       ``(1) Grant review and approval.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish a peer review process to assist in the 
     review of the grant applications and approval of the grants 
     under this section; and
       ``(B) appoint to the peer review process--
       ``(i) individuals who are educators and experts in--

       ``(I) secondary school reform;
       ``(II) accountability;
       ``(III) secondary school improvement;
       ``(IV) innovative education models; and
       ``(V) other educational needs of secondary school students; 
     and

       ``(ii) not less than 1 parent or community representative; 
     and
       ``(C) ensure that each grant award is of sufficient size 
     and scope to carry out the activities proposed in the grant 
     application, including the evaluation required under 
     subsection (g)(3).
       ``(2) Award basis.--In awarding grants under this part, the 
     Secretary shall ensure, to the extent practicable--
       ``(A) diversity in the type of activities funded under the 
     grants;
       ``(B) an equitable geographic distribution of the grants, 
     including urban and rural areas; and
       ``(C) that the grants support activities--
       ``(i) that target different grade levels of students at the 
     secondary school level; and
       ``(ii) in a variety of types of secondary schools, 
     including middle schools and high schools.
       ``(e) Federal Share, Non-Federal Share.--
       ``(1) Federal share.--The Federal share of a grant under 
     this part shall be not more than 75 percent of the costs of 
     the activities assisted under the grant.
       ``(2) Non-federal share.--The non-Federal share shall be 
     not less than 25 percent of the costs of the activities 
     assisted under the grant, of which not more than 10 percent 
     of the costs of the activities assisted under the grant may 
     be provided in-kind, fairly evaluated.
       ``(f) Use of Funds.--An eligible partnership receiving a 
     grant under this part, or an eligible school receiving a 
     subgrant under this part, shall use grant or subgrant funds, 
     respectively, to carry out 1 or more of the following 
     activities:
       ``(1) Creating multiple pathways, including the creation of 
     new public schools, that offer students a range of 
     educational options designed to meet the students' needs and 
     interests and to lead to a secondary school diploma 
     consistent with readiness for postsecondary education and the 
     workforce, which pathways may include--
       ``(A) alternative public schools that--
       ``(i) use innovative strategies such as flexible hours;
       ``(ii) provide competency-based instruction and 
     performance-based assessment to improve educational outcomes 
     for various populations of overaged and undercredited 
     students or dropouts, such as--

       ``(I) students not making sufficient progress to graduate 
     with a regular secondary school diploma in the standard 
     number of years;
       ``(II) students who need to work to support themselves or 
     their families;
       ``(III) pregnant and parenting teens; and
       ``(IV) students returning from the juvenile justice system;

       ``(B) career and technical education programs;
       ``(C) career academies;
       ``(D) early college and dual enrollment learning 
     opportunities; and
       ``(E) creating more personalized and engaging learning 
     environments for secondary school students, such as--
       ``(i) establishing smaller learning communities;
       ``(ii) creating student advisories and developing peer 
     engagement strategies in which students lead guidance 
     activities, mentoring, or tutoring efforts;
       ``(iii) involving students and parents in the development 
     of individualized student plans for secondary school success 
     and graduation and postsecondary transition;
       ``(iv) creating mechanisms for increased student 
     participation in school improvement efforts and in decisions 
     affecting the students' own learning; and
       ``(v) creating new opportunities to better utilize the 
     grade 11 and grade 12 years and creating better connectivity 
     to postsecondary education.
       ``(2) Creating expanded learning time opportunities, which 
     may include--
       ``(A) establishing a mandatory expanded day, for all 
     students transitioning into the first year of high school, 
     for academic catch-up and enrichment;
       ``(B) providing arts or service learning opportunities with 
     community-based cultural and civic organizations; and
       ``(C) providing higher education and work-based exposure, 
     experience, and credit-bearing learning opportunities in 
     partnership with postsecondary institutions and the 
     workforce.
       ``(3) Improving student transitions from middle school to 
     high school and ensuring successful entry into high school, 
     which may include--
       ``(A) establishing summer transition programs for secondary 
     school students transitioning from middle school to high 
     school to ensure the students' connection to the students' 
     new high school and to orient the students to the study 
     skills and social skills necessary for success in the high 
     school;
       ``(B) providing for the sharing of data between high 
     schools and feeder middle schools;
       ``(C) establishing quick response and recovery programs in 
     high school for secondary school students transitioning into 
     the students' first year of high school so that such students 
     do not become truant or fall too far behind in academics;
       ``(D) increasing the level of student supports, including 
     academic and social-emotional supports, especially for 
     struggling students; and
       ``(E) aligning academic standards, curricula, and 
     assessments between middle and high schools.
       ``(4) Improving student transitions from secondary school 
     to postsecondary education and the workforce, which may 
     include--
       ``(A) providing for the sharing of data between secondary 
     schools and institutions of higher education;
       ``(B) enabling dual enrollment and credit-bearing learning 
     opportunities;
       ``(C) establishing one or more early college secondary 
     schools that offer students a secondary school diploma and 
     not more than 2 years of college credit within a 4- or 5-year 
     program;
       ``(D) providing enhanced higher education and financial aid 
     counseling; and
       ``(E) aligning the academic standards of secondary school 
     with the academic standards of postsecondary education and 
     the requirements and expectations of the workforce.

[[Page S10612]]

       ``(5) Increasing the autonomy and flexibility of secondary 
     schools, which may include--
       ``(A) establishing a process whereby existing schools can 
     apply for flexibility in such areas as scheduling, curricula, 
     budgeting, and governance; and
       ``(B) starting new small public secondary schools that are 
     guaranteed such autonomies.
       ``(6) Improving learning opportunities for secondary school 
     students in rural schools, including through the use of 
     distance-learning opportunities and other technology-based 
     tools.
       ``(7) Redesigning a middle school--
       ``(A) to prevent student disengagement and improve 
     achievement; and
       ``(B) to better respond to early warning signs that 
     students are at risk of dropping out of school, such as poor 
     attendance, poor behavior, or course failure.
       ``(8) Improving teaching and increasing academic rigor at 
     the secondary school level, which may include--
       ``(A) improving the alignment of academic standards with 
     the requirements and expectations of postsecondary education 
     and the workforce;
       ``(B) improving the teaching and assessment of 21st century 
     skills, including through the development of formative 
     assessment models;
       ``(C) increasing community involvement, including 
     leveraging community-based services and opportunities to 
     provide every student with the academic and nonacademic 
     supports necessary for academic success;
       ``(D) increasing parental involvement, including providing 
     parents with the tools to navigate, support, and influence 
     their child's academic career and choices through secondary 
     school graduation and into postsecondary education and the 
     workforce; and
       ``(E) addressing the learning needs of various student 
     populations, including students who are limited English 
     proficient, late entrant English language learners, and 
     students with disabilities.
       ``(g) Data Collection and Evaluation.--
       ``(1) Collection of data.--Each eligible partnership 
     receiving a grant under this part shall collect and report 
     annually to the Secretary such information on the results of 
     the activities assisted under the grant as the Secretary may 
     reasonably require, including information on--
       ``(A) the number and percentage of students who--
       ``(i) are served by the eligible partnership;
       ``(ii) are assisted under this part; and
       ``(iii) graduate from secondary school with a regular 
     secondary school diploma in the standard number of years;
       ``(B) the number and percentage of students, at each grade 
     level, who are--
       ``(i) served by the eligible partnership;
       ``(ii) assisted under this part; and
       ``(iii) on track to graduate from secondary school with a 
     regular secondary school diploma in the standard number of 
     years;
       ``(C) the number and percentage of students, at each grade 
     level, who--
       ``(i) are served by the eligible partnership;
       ``(ii) are assisted under this part; and
       ``(iii) meet or exceed State challenging student academic 
     achievement standards in mathematics, reading or language 
     arts, or science, as measured by the State academic 
     assessments under section 1111(b)(3);
       ``(D) information consistent with the additional indicators 
     of improvement proposed by the eligible partnership in the 
     grant application; and
       ``(E) other information the Secretary may require as 
     necessary for the evaluation described in subsection (h).
       ``(2) Reporting of data.--Each eligible partnership 
     receiving a grant under this part shall disaggregate the 
     information required under paragraph (1) in the same manner 
     as information is disaggregated under section 
     1111(h)(1)(C)(i).
       ``(3) Evaluation.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each eligible partnership receiving a 
     grant under this part shall enter into a contract with an 
     outside evaluator to enable the evaluator to conduct--
       ``(i) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant after 
     the third year of implementation of the grant; and
       ``(ii) an evaluation of the effectiveness of the grant 
     after the final year of the grant period.
       ``(B) Distribution.--Upon completion of an evaluation 
     described in subparagraph (A), the eligible partnership shall 
     submit a copy of the evaluation to the Secretary in a timely 
     manner.
       ``(h) Evaluation; Best Practices.--
       ``(1) In general.--From amounts reserved under subsection 
     (b), the Secretary shall--
       ``(A) enter into a contract with an outside evaluator to 
     enable the evaluator to conduct--
       ``(i) a comprehensive evaluation after the third year of 
     implementation on the effectiveness of all grants awarded 
     under this part; and
       ``(ii) a final evaluation following the final year of the 
     grant period with a focus on improvement in student 
     achievement as a result of innovative strategies; and
       ``(B) disseminate best practices in improving the 
     achievement of secondary school students.
       ``(2) Peer review.--
       ``(A) In general.--An evaluator receiving a contract under 
     this subsection shall--
       ``(i) establish a peer-review process to assist in the 
     review and approval of the evaluations conducted under this 
     subsection; and
       ``(ii) appoint individuals to the peer-review process who 
     are educators and experts in--

       ``(I) research and evaluation; and
       ``(II) the areas of expertise described in subclauses (I) 
     through (V) of subsection (d)(1)(B)(i).

       ``(B) Restrictions on use.--The Secretary shall not 
     distribute or use the results of any evaluation described in 
     paragraph (1)(A) until the results are peer-reviewed in 
     accordance with subparagraph (A).
       ``(i) Continuation of Funding.--An eligible partnership 
     that receives a grant under this part shall only be eligible 
     to receive a grant payment for a fourth or fifth year of the 
     grant if the Secretary determines, on the basis of the 
     evaluation of the grant under subsection (h)(1)(A)(i), that 
     the performance of the eligible partnership under the grant 
     has been satisfactory.
       ``(j) Rule of Construction Regarding Discrimination.--
     Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit 
     discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, 
     national origin, or disability in any program or activity 
     funded under this part.

     ``SEC. 1854. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and for each of the 
     succeeding 5 years.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The table of contents in 
     section 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 note) is amended--
       (1) by striking the item relating to Part I and inserting 
     the following:

                  ``Part J--General Provisions''; and

       (2) by inserting after the item relating to section 1830 
     the following:

               ``PART I--Secondary School Innovation Fund

``Sec. 1851. Purposes.
``Sec. 1852. Definitions.
``Sec. 1853. Secondary school innovation fund.
``Sec. 1854. Authorization of appropriations.''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WEBB (for himself, Mr. Sessions, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Pryor, 
        Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Lott, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Warner, Mrs. 
        Lincoln, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Burr, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. 
        Alexander, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mrs. Clinton):
  S. 1921. A bill to amend the American Battlefield Protection Act of 
1996 to extend the authorization for that Act, and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague 
Senator Jeff Sessions and 14 of our Senate colleagues to introduce the 
Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2007. This bipartisan 
legislation was recently introduced in the House by Congressmen Gary 
Miller of California and Bart Gordon of Tennessee and presently enjoys 
the support of 26 Members of Congress.
  Our bill is a straightforward, 5 year extension of the 2002 Civil War 
Battlefield Preservation Act. The purpose of this legislation remains 
the same as when Congress first passed it: to preserve and protect 
nationally significant Civil War battlefields through conservation 
easements and fee-simple purchases of battlefield sites. In addition, 
the legislation fosters partnerships among State and local governments, 
regional entities, and the private sector to preserve, conserve, and 
enhance nationally significant Civil War battlefields.
  The legislation continues to protect private property rights by 
limiting land acquisitions to willing sellers only. It also requires a 
50-50 match in order for projects to be eligible to receive Federal 
funds. Finally, the program limits the effect on the burgeoning 
National Park Service's maintenance backlog because non-Federal 
entities are responsible for the long-term maintenance of sites not 
within National Park Service boundaries.
  In 1990, Congress established the Civil War Sites Advisory 
commission, a blue-ribbon panel empowered to investigate the status of 
America's remaining Civil War battlefields. Congress tasked the 
commission with the mission of prioritizing these battlefields 
according to their historic importance and the threats to their 
survival. The commission ultimately looked at the 10,000-plus battles 
and skirmishes of the Civil War and determined that 384 priority sites 
should be preserved. The results of the report were released in 1993 
and they were not encouraging.
  The 1993 commission report recommended that Congress create an 
emergency program to save threatened Civil War battlefield land. The 
result was the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program, which was 
first funded

[[Page S10613]]

in fiscal year 1999 and originally authorized in 2002. To date, the 
preservation program has saved over 14,000 acres of land in 15 States.
  The key to the success of the preservation program is that it 
achieves battlefield preservation through collaborative partnerships 
between State and local governments, the private sector and nonprofit 
organizations, such as the Civil War Preservation Trust.
  But for the preservation program and its non-Federal partners, we 
would have lost key sites from national shrines at Antietam. 
Chancellorsville. Fredericksburg. Manassas. Harpers Ferry. Bentonville. 
Mansfield. Champion Hill. Their names of these legendary battlegrounds 
continue to haunt us to this day. Had the Civil War Battlefield 
Preservation Program not been available as a tool to preserve 
threatened battlefield land, these sites and others like them would 
have surely been lost forever to commercial and residential 
development.
  It is not every day you can visit battlefield sites and have an 
immediate, direct connection with your ancestors. We must preserve 
these sites so that future generations might see and touch the very 
places where so many sacrifices were made, by soldiers and civilians 
alike. We are a stronger, more diverse and free Nation because of these 
sacrifices.
  I would remind my colleagues that the preservation program has 
enjoyed bipartisan, bicameral support since its inception. In 2002, 
program funding was authorized through the Civil War Battlefield 
Preservation Act at the level recommended by the Civil War Sites 
Advisory Commission, $10 million a year. These Federal funds have, and 
will continue to, leverage millions more in private and other 
charitable donations; thereby increasing our ability to preserve more 
threatened battlefield sites.
  The Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act has become an essential 
tool for protecting our nation's Civil War battlefields. I would urge 
my colleagues in the Senate to reauthorize this important federal 
program. The clock is ticking against these threatened historical sites 
and we must keep the Civil War Battlefield Preservation Program as a 
valuable tool to preserve them.
  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. 1921

       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 ``Civil War Battlefield 
     Preservation Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Civil War battlefields provide a means for the people 
     of the United States to understand a tragic period in the 
     history of the United States.
       (2) According to the Report on the Nation's Civil War 
     Battlefields, prepared by the Civil War Sites Advisory 
     Commission, and dated July 1993, of the 384 principal Civil 
     War battlefields--
       (A) almost 20 percent are lost or fragmented;
       (B) 17 percent are in poor condition; and
       (C) 60 percent have been lost or are in imminent danger of 
     being fragmented by development and lost as coherent historic 
     sites.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to act quickly and proactively to preserve and protect 
     nationally significant Civil War battlefields through 
     conservation easements and fee-simple purchases of those 
     battlefields from willing sellers at fair market value;
       (2) to create partnerships among State and local 
     governments, regional entities, and the private sector to 
     preserve, conserve, and enhance nationally significant Civil 
     War battlefields; and
       (3) to prepare our Nation for the upcoming sesquicentennial 
     commemoration of the Civil War, 2011 through 2015, which is 
     expected to stimulate renewed interest in the conflict and 
     generate unprecedented visitation to preserved Civil War 
     battlegrounds.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION EXTENDED.

       The American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 
     469k) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(7)(A), by striking ``fiscal years 
     2004 through 2008'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2009 through 
     2013''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``September 30, 2008'' 
     and inserting ``September 30, 2013''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1922. A bill to apply basic contracting laws to the Transportation 
Security Administration; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing 
the TSA Acquisition Reform Act of 2007 to repeal exemptions from 
Federal contracting laws that were granted to the Transportation 
Security Administration, TSA, after 9/11 in the rush to secure 
airports. Representative Carney has introduced identical legislation in 
the House and I look forward to working with him to improve contracting 
at TSA.
  TSA is one of the few Federal agencies and the only agency within the 
Department of Homeland Security that is not subject to the same 
procurement rules that every other Federal agency, including the 
Department of Defense, must abide.
  Specifically, it is exempt from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 
FAR, which covers every major procurement law and requires Federal 
agencies to provide for an open and competitive bidding process and 
submit contract information to the Federal Procurement Data System. 
TSA's exemption from the FAR was never meant to be permanent, and this 
amendment would bring the agency in line with normal Federal 
contracting rules.
  TSA has a record of mismanaging contracts and wasting taxpayer 
dollars, and has been the subject of several DOT and DHS Inspector 
General reports. For instance, in 2002, TSA, despite using FAR 
guidelines, issued a federally prohibited cost-plus-a-percentage 
contract to Boeing to install explosive detection systems in airports. 
In September 2004, the IG found that the initial $508 million contract 
ballooned to $1.2 billion, that Boeing was paid $49 million in excess 
profit, received $82 million to cover $39 million in costs, and 
ultimately received a 210 percent return on its investment.
  In 2005, the Washington Post reported on an audit by the Defense 
Contract Audit Agency which showed that a contract issued to the 
Pearson government solutions firm to recruit Federal passenger 
screeners increased in cost from $104 million to $741 million in 9 
months in part because TSA changed the scope of the contract to require 
Pearson to use posh hotels, including the Waldorf Astoria, as 
recruitment centers. TSA disputes this account, but cannot provide any 
paperwork to back it up. The article quoted Deputy DHS Secretary 
Michael Jackson as saying, ``Honestly, I have no memory of it.''
  In 2004, the when the GAO wanted to review 21 TSA contracts, it 
literally had to send staff to rummage through boxes of files to 
retrieve information that would otherwise have been in the Federal 
Procurement Data System.
  As Chairman of the Small Business Committee, I am particular 
concerned about TSA's inability to meet its small business contracting 
goals. I am pleased that the 2007 DHS Appropriations bill applied the 
Small Business Act to TSA, but small business owners won't truly 
benefit because TSA is still exempt from basic contracting rules under 
the FAR that helps them compete for Federal contracts. Although TSA's 
small business contracting goal is 23 percent annually, only 10.7 
percent of its contracts went to small businesses in 2005. Analysis 
conducted by my staff suggest that the true figure is closer to 6 
percent because many of the large corporations that contract with TSA 
set up subsidiaries that technically qualify as small businesses but 
are in fact part of a larger corporation. I am concerned about this and 
I know that my colleague, Senator Snowe, the ranking member of the 
Small Business Committee, is concerned as well.

  There is another important reason to require TSA to follow the FAR. 
DHS, which encompasses 22 different agencies, is trying to create a 
unified procurement system and a common culture within the department. 
The Comptroller General noted last year before the House Homeland 
Security Committee that ``the various acquisition organizations within 
DHS are still operating in a disparate manner, with oversight of 
acquisition activities left primarily up to each individual 
component.'' How can DHS create a common contracting system when the 
agency that spends the most money on contracts within the department is 
exempt from the department's own rules?

[[Page S10614]]

  It would be wrong to suggest that exemption from FAR is the main 
reason that TSA has mismanaged contracts. Its acquisition office was 
understaffed after 9/11, and there was a rush to meet Congressional 
deadlines that led to sloppy oversight. I understand that TSA has spent 
millions to improve its contracting office and I commend it for doing 
so. However, it is far from clear that TSA has a functional procurement 
system. A 2006 GAO review of the ongoing Boeing contract suggests that 
poor contracting oversight continues to plague TSA. The report states 
that ``TSA officials provided no evidence that they are reviewing 
required contractor submitted performance data,'' and that they ``do 
not document their activities because there are no TSA policies and 
procedures requiring them to do so. I know all Members would agree that 
this is a problem.
  Unfortunately, lack of transparency and accountability are common 
themes in TSA's procurement history. Former DHS IG Kent Ervin has said 
that ``TSA is rapidly becoming the poster child for contracting 
dysfunction.'' Citizens Against Government Waste, which has endorsed 
this amendment, said in a letter to my office that ``TSA has a record 
of wasteful spending and mismanagement in its acquisition process and a 
continued exemption will only lead to more abuse.'' I think we would be 
remiss in our oversight responsibilities if we did not repeal these 
exemptions. TSA should not be policing itself.
  I am not alone with these concerns. Just ask the Professional 
Services Council, the Nation's largest trade association representing 
Government contractors. In a letter to sent to my office yesterday, the 
PSC stated that my amendment will ``increase competition, expand 
opportunities for small businesses, provide greater accountability and 
transparency in their procurement process.'' This judgment comes from 
the association representing the contractors that do business with TSA.
  Last year, TSA sent a letter to my office saying that it follows the 
FAR as a general rule but that its exemption ``benefits taxpayers.'' 
Amazingly, TSA criticized the FAR's requirement that Federal agencies 
consider all interested companies in the bidding process, saying that 
``negatively impacts the limited resources of the government.'' It is 
hard to see how taxpayers benefit when an agency has the ability to opt 
out of the competitive bidding process at its choosing. The Army, 
Marines, Navy, Air Force, none of these agencies can simply decide to 
opt out of the FAR unless they meet the criteria for an exemption which 
is already provided for under the law.
  This legislation is simple: apply the same rules to TSA that every 
other agency has to follow. There is no legitimate reason to maintain 
these exemptions--not for efficiency, not for national security. If it 
is good enough for the Department of Defense, it is good enough for 
TSA.
  I look forward to working with Senator Snowe and Representative 
Carney to pass this important legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KOHL (for himself, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. McCaskill, Mr. 
        Durbin, and Mr. Smith):
  S. 1925. A bill to amend the Truth in Lending Act, to prevent credit 
card issuers from taking unfair advantage of college students and their 
parents, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Student Credit 
Card Protection Act of 2007 with my colleagues Senators Smith, 
McCaskill, Sanders, and Durbin. This legislation will help prevent 
college students from compiling massive credit card debt while in 
school.
  College students have become the target of credit card companies 
advertising campaigns over the past 15 years. Many universities allow 
credit card companies to set up tables on campus and offer students 
free gifts in exchange for filling out a credit card application. 
Additionally, students receive card solicitations through mail to their 
on-campus mailbox or at their home address even before they arrive at 
the university in the fall. These aggressive marketing strategies have 
worked and now close to 96 percent of college graduates hold a credit 
card, compared to 1994, when only half had one. The average college 
student graduates with close to $3,000 in credit card debt, double the 
amount in 1994. In some very extreme cases, students are leaving school 
with multiple credit cards and debts amounting upwards of $10,000.
  Credit card debt can make it harder for graduates to rent an 
apartment, receive a car loan, or obtain a job after college. Due to 
the lack of financial education and complicated terms and conditions, 
many students find themselves in over their heads. The Student Credit 
Card Protection Act will help students avoid large credit card debt 
while forcing issuers to make more responsible loans. The bill requires 
credit card issuers to verify annual income of a full-time student and 
then extends a line of credit based on the income. For a student 
without a verifiable income, a parent, legal guardian or spouse must 
co-sign the credit card and approve any increase in the credit limit. 
These simple underwriting requirements will make it more difficult for 
credit card companies to approve loans that are beyond a students' 
ability to repay and return to a more responsible lending policy.
  It is imperative that we help minimize the amount of debt young 
consumers incur before entering into the workforce. On average, a 
student with a bachelors degree will leave school with $18,000 in 
student loan debt. Paying for housing, healthcare, and student loans 
already place a financial strain on a recent college graduate. A huge 
credit card payment on top of all card of the other bills can lead to 
financial ruin before young people even have a chance to get on their 
feet. This bill gives students the protection they deserve from 
irresponsible lending that can trap them in years of crushing debt 
repayment.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
  S. 1926. A bill to establish the National Infrastructure Bank to 
provide funding for qualified infrastructure projects, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce bipartisan legislation 
with my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel. The bill addresses an 
issue of paramount importance to our country and its quality of life: 
the deteriorating condition of our infrastructure systems.
  I do not believe there is one person present in this chamber, funding 
myself, who has not taken our Nation's infrastructure systems for 
granted at some point. Indeed, our roads, bridges, mass transit 
systems, drinking water systems, wastewater systems, and public housing 
properties, collectively comprise the overlooked but critically 
important adhesive that holds our society together. These systems allow 
for the continuous passage of people and goods across the country; they 
allow people to communicate with each other here and around the world; 
they allow business and Government to function; and they allow goods to 
be consumed and services to be rendered. All in all, our infrastructure 
systems are directly responsible for providing the high quality of life 
that we Americans have come to enjoy in a free society.
  Yet, it is precisely because we have taken our infrastructure systems 
for granted that we find ourselves in a precarious position today 
concerning their future viability. One does not have to look far to 
comprehend the extensive problems plaguing many of our infrastructure 
systems and facilities.
  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers in their seminal 
2005 Infrastructure Report Card, the current condition of our Nation's 
major infrastructure systems earns a grade point average of D and 
jeopardizes the prosperity and quality of life of all Americans.
  According to the Federal Highway Administration, 33 percent of all 
urban and rural roads are in poor, mediocre or fair condition. 27.1 
percent of all bridges are structurally deficient or functionally 
obsolete. Data from the Federal Transit Administration shows our mass 
transit systems are becoming increasingly unable to handle the growing 
demands passengers in a safe and efficient manner. According to the 
Texas Transportation Institute, the average traveler is delayed 51.5 
hours annually due to traffic and infrastructure-related congestion in 
the Nation's

[[Page S10615]]

20 largest metropolitan areas. The delays range from 93 hours in Los 
Angeles to 14 hours in Pittsburgh. Combined, these delays waste 1.78 
billion gallons of fuel each year and waste almost $50.3 billion in 
congestion costs. Furthermore, the average delay in these metropolitan 
areas has increased by almost 35.3 hours since 1982.
  A significant percentage of our Nation's drinking water and 
wastewater systems are obsolete; the average age of these systems range 
in age from 50 years in smaller cities to 100 years in larger cities. 
Finally, the Department of Housing and Urban Development reports there 
are 1.2 million units of public housing with critical capital needs 
totaling $18 billion. Clearly, these statistics are alarming and they 
are not getting any better.
  In their Infrastructure Report Card, the American Society of Civil 
Engineers estimates that $1.6 trillion is needed over a 5-year period 
to bring our Nation's infrastructure systems to a good condition.
  Regrettably, our current infrastructure financing mechanisms, such as 
formula grants and earmarks, are not equipped by themselves to absorb 
this cost or meet fully these growing needs. They largely do not 
address capacity-building infrastructure projects of regional or 
national significance; they largely do not encourage an appropriate 
pooling of Federal, State, local and private resources; and they 
largely do not provide transparency to ensure the optimal return on 
public resources.
  This is why I rise with my colleague from Nebraska today. We are 
introducing the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007, a bipartisan 
measure that addresses the critical needs of our Nation's major 
infrastructure systems. Our legislation establishes a new method 
through which the Federal Government can finance infrastructure 
projects of substantial regional or national significance more 
effectively with public and private capital.
  Our legislation establishes the National Infrastructure Bank, which, 
as an independent entity of the Government, is tasked with evaluating 
and financing capacity-building infrastructure projects of substantial 
regional and national significance. Infrastructure projects that come 
under the bank's consideration are publicly-owned mass transit systems, 
housing properties, roads, bridges, drinking water systems, and 
wastewater systems.
  Modeled after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the bank is 
led by a 5 member Board of Directors, each whom are appointed by the 
Prsident and confirmed by the Senate. The bank's board has flexibility 
to develop an organization of professional civil service staff to carry 
out the bank's authorized activities. An Inspector General oversees the 
bank's daily operations and reports on those operations to Congress.
  Infrastructure projects with a potential Federal investment of at 
least $75 million are brought to the bank's attention by a project 
sponsor, State, locality, tribe, infrastructure agency, e.g. transit 
agency, a consortium of these entities. To determine a level of Federal 
investment, the bank uses a sliding-scale method that incorporates 
conditions such as the type of infrastructure system or systems, 
project location, project cost, current and projected usage, non-
Federal revenue, regional or national significance, promotion of 
economic growth and community development, reduction in traffic 
congestion, environmental benefits, land use policies that promote 
smart growth, and mobility improvements.
  Once a level of investment is determined for a project, the bank 
develops a financing package with full faith and credit from the 
government. The financing package could include direct subsidies, 
direct loan guarantees, long-term tax-credit general purpose bonds, and 
long-term tax-credit infrastructure project specific bonds. The initial 
ceiling to issue bonds is $60 billion.
  The bank is tasked to report annually to Congress on the projects it 
reviews and finances. A public database is created to catalog what 
projects were funded and what financing packages were provided. The 
bank is also tasked to report every 3 years on the economic efficacy 
and transparency of all current Federal infrastructure financing 
methods, and how those methods could be improved. After 5 years, the 
Government Accountability Office would be tasked with evaluating the 
bank's operations and efficacy.
  It is important to note that our legislation does not displace or 
supplant any existing infrastructure finance mechanisms, such as 
formula grants and earmarks. Instead, the bank targets large-scale 
projects that are currently underserved by these existing financing 
mechanisms.
  I would like to take a moment to thank the Centers for Strategic and 
International Studies, CSIS, and the work undertaken by Dr. John Hamre 
in infrastucture finance. CSIS, Ambassador Felix Rohatyn, and former 
Senator Warren Rudman have provided valuable assistance and support in 
the development of our legislation.
  I would also like to thank the American Society of Civil Engineers 
and the National Construction Alliance for their support of our bill.
  It is my intent to take up this legislation in the Banking Committee 
after the August recess. This is an issue that cannot be neglected or 
deferred any further. Restoring our Nation's infrastructure demands our 
immediate attention and commitment in the Senate. The quality of life 
in our country hangs in the balance.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text 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. 1926

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``National 
     Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents of this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Definitions.
Sec. 4. Authorization of appropriations.

                 TITLE I--NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE BANK

Sec. 101. Establishment of Bank.
Sec. 102. Management of Bank.
Sec. 103. Staff and personnel matters.

                TITLE II--POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BANK

Sec. 201. Powers of the Bank Board.
Sec. 202. Qualified infrastructure project ratings.
Sec. 203. Development of financing package.
Sec. 204. Coupon notes for holders of infrastructure bonds.
Sec. 205. Exemption from local taxation.

                     TITLE III--STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec. 301. Report; database.
Sec. 302. Study and report on infrastructure financing mechanisms.
Sec. 303. GAO report.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) according to the American Society of Civil Engineers, 
     the current condition of the infrastructure of the United 
     States earns a grade point average of D and jeopardizes the 
     prosperity and quality of life of the citizens of the United 
     States;
       (2) according to the Federal Transit Administration--
       (A) approximately $15,800,000,000 must be expended each 
     year for a period of not less than 20 years to maintain the 
     operational capacity of the transit systems of the United 
     States; and
       (B) approximately $21,800,000,000 must be expended each 
     year for a period of not less than 20 years to improve the 
     operational capacity of the transit systems of the United 
     States to meet the growing demands of passengers in a safe 
     and adequate manner;
       (3) according to the Millennial Housing Commission, there 
     remains a critical shortage of affordable public housing for 
     extreme low-income individuals;
       (4) there are over 1,200,000 units of public housing 
     nationwide, with an accumulated capital needs backlog of 
     approximately $18,000,000,000, with an additional 
     $2,000,000,000 accruing each year;
       (5) according to the Federal Highway Administration--
       (A) 33 percent of all urban and rural roads in the United 
     States are in poor, mediocre, or fair condition;
       (B) approximately $131,700,000,000 must be expended each 
     year for a period of not less than 20 years to improve the 
     conditions of those urban and rural roads;
       (C) 27.1 percent of all bridges in the United States are--
       (i) structurally deficient; or
       (ii) functionally obsolete; and
       (D) approximately $9,400,000,000 must be expended each year 
     for a period of not less than 20 years to eliminate the 
     deficiencies of those bridges;
       (6) according to the Environmental Protection Agency--
       (A) $151,000,000,000 must be expended during the next 20 
     years to make necessary repairs, replacements, and upgrades 
     to the approximately 55,000 community drinking water systems 
     of the United States; and

[[Page S10616]]

       (B) approximately $390,000,000,000 must be expended during 
     the next 20 years to eliminate the deficiencies of the 
     wastewater systems of the United States;
       (7) the infrastructure financing mechanisms of the United 
     States do not adequately--
       (A) address infrastructure projects of regional or national 
     significance;
       (B) encourage an appropriate pooling of Federal, State, 
     local, and private resources; or
       (C) provide transparency to ensure the optimal return on 
     public resources;
       (8) there are no Federal financing notes, credits, or bonds 
     which allow investors to fund only infrastructure projects;
       (9) there is a need to involve pension funds and other 
     private investors who want to invest in infrastructure, but 
     to whom tax credits have no value; and
       (10) there are no federally guaranteed investment notes of 
     greater than 30 years in duration, whereas many federally 
     funded assets are of durations much longer than 30 years.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions shall apply:
       (1) Bank.--The term ``Bank'' means the ``National 
     Infrastructure Bank'' established under section 101.
       (2) Board.--The term ``Board'' means the board of directors 
     of the Bank, established under section 102.
       (3) Chairperson; vice chairperson.--The terms 
     ``Chairperson'' and ``Vice Chairperson'' mean the Chairperson 
     and Vice Chairperson of the Board, respectively.
       (4) Financing mechanism.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``financing mechanism'' means a 
     method used by the Bank to pledge the full faith and credit 
     of the United States to provide money, credit, or other 
     capital to a qualified infrastructure project.
       (B) Inclusions.--The term ``financing mechanism'' 
     includes--
       (i) a direct subsidy;
       (ii) a general purpose infrastructure bond; and
       (iii) a project-based infrastructure bond.
       (5) Financing package.--The term ``financing package'' 
     means 1 or more financing mechanisms used by the Bank to meet 
     the Federal commitment for a qualified infrastructure 
     project.
       (6) General purpose infrastructure bond.--The term 
     ``general purpose infrastructure bond'' means a bond issued 
     as part of an issue in accordance with this Act, if--
       (A) the net spendable proceeds from the sale of the issue 
     may be used for expenditures incurred after the date of 
     issuance with respect to any qualified infrastructure project 
     or purpose, subject to the rules of the Bank;
       (B) the bond is issued by the Bank, is in registered form, 
     and meets the requirements of this Act and otherwise 
     applicable law;
       (C) the term of each bond which is part of the issue is 
     greater than 30 years; and
       (D) the payment of principal with respect to the bond is 
     the obligation of the Bank.
       (7) Infrastructure project.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``infrastructure project'' means 
     the building, improvement, or increase in capacity of a basic 
     installation, facility, asset, or stock that is associated 
     with--
       (i) a mass transit system that meets the criteria in 
     subparagraph (B);
       (ii) a public housing property that is eligible to receive 
     funding under section 24 of the United States Housing Act of 
     1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v) and that meets the criteria in 
     subparagraph (B);
       (iii) a road or bridge that meets the criteria in 
     subparagraph (B); or
       (iv) a drinking water system or a wastewater system that 
     meets the criteria in subparagraph (B).
       (B) Criteria.--A project described in any of clauses (i) 
     through (iv) of subparagraph (A) meets the criteria of this 
     subparagraph if it serves any one or more of the objectives 
     identified in paragraphs (1) through (9) of section 101(c) of 
     the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 
     5301(c)).
       (8) Project-based infrastructure bond.--The term ``project-
     based infrastructure bond'' means any bond issued as part of 
     an issue, if--
       (A) the net spendable proceeds from the sale of the issue 
     are to be used for expenditures incurred after the date of 
     issuance only with respect to the qualified infrastructure 
     project for which the bond is issued;
       (B) the bond is issued by the Bank, meets the requirements 
     of section 149(a) of title 26, United States Code, for 
     registration, and otherwise meets the requirements of this 
     Act and other applicable law;
       (C) the term of each bond which is part of the issue is 
     equal to the useful life of the qualified infrastructure 
     project funded through use of the bond; and
       (D) the payment of principal with respect to the bond is 
     the obligation of the Bank.
       (9) Public housing agency.--The term ``public housing 
     agency'' means an agency described in section 3(b)(6) of the 
     United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437a(b)(6)).
       (10) Public sponsor.--The term ``public sponsor'' includes 
     a State or local government, an Indian tribe (as defined in 
     section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education 
     Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b), a public transit agency, 
     public housing agency, a public infrastructure agency, or a 
     consortium of those entities, including a public entity that 
     has partnered with a private nonprofit or for-profit entity.
       (11) Qualified infrastructure project.--The term 
     ``qualified infrastructure project'' means an infrastructure 
     project designated by the Board as a qualified infrastructure 
     project in accordance with section 202.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Until such time as the Bank has received funds from the 
     issuance of bonds sufficient to carry out this Act and the 
     administration of the Bank, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Bank, such sums as may be necessary for 
     such purposes, to remain available until expended.

                 TITLE I--NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE BANK

     SEC. 101. ESTABLISHMENT OF BANK.

       There is established the ``National Infrastructure Bank'', 
     which shall be an independent establishment of the Federal 
     Government, as defined in section 104 of title 5, United 
     States Code.

     SEC. 102. MANAGEMENT OF BANK.

       (a) Board of Directors.--
       (1) In general.--The management of the Bank shall be vested 
     in a Board of Directors consisting of 5 members, appointed by 
     the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 
     Senate, from among individuals who are citizens of the United 
     States.
       (2) Member expertise.--Not fewer than 1 member of the Board 
     shall have demonstrated expertise in--
       (A) transit infrastructure;
       (B) public housing infrastructure;
       (C) road and bridge infrastructure;
       (D) water infrastructure; or
       (E) public finance.
       (3) Political affiliation.--Section 2(a)(2) of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1812(a)(2) shall apply to 
     members of the Board of Directors of the Bank in the same 
     manner as it applies to the Board of Directors of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Corporation.
       (4) Meetings.--The Board shall meet not later than 90 days 
     after the date on which all directors of the Board are first 
     appointed, and otherwise at the call of the Chairperson.
       (5) Date of appointments.--The initial nominations to the 
     Board shall be made not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.
       (b) Chairperson and Vice Chairperson.--The Chairperson and 
     Vice Chairperson of the Board shall be appointed and shall 
     serve in the same manner as is provided for members of the 
     Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation under section 2(b) of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1812(b)).
       (c) Terms.--
       (1) Appointed members.--Except as provided in paragraph 
     (2), each member of the Board shall be appointed for a term 
     of 6 years.
       (2) Initial staggered terms.--Of the initial members of the 
     Board--
       (A) the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be appointed 
     for a term of 6 years;
       (B) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 5 years;
       (C) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 4 years; and
       (D) 1 member shall be appointed for a term of 3 years.
       (3) Interim appointments.--Any member of the Board 
     appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration 
     of the term for which the predecessor of such member was 
     appointed shall be appointed only for the remainder of such 
     term.
       (4) Continuation of service.--The Chairperson, Vice 
     Chairperson, and each other member of the Board may continue 
     to serve after the expiration of the term of office to which 
     such member was appointed, until a successor has been 
     appointed.
       (d) Vacancy.--Any vacancy on the Board shall be filled in 
     the manner in which the original appointment was made.
       (e) Ineligibility for Other Offices.--
       (1) Restriction during service.--No member of the Board 
     may, during service on the Board--
       (A) be an officer or director of, or otherwise be employed 
     by, any entity engaged in or otherwise associated with an 
     infrastructure project assisted or considered under this Act;
       (B) hold stock in any such entity; or
       (C) hold any other elected or appointed public office.
       (2) Post service restriction.--
       (A) In general.--No member of the Board may hold any 
     office, position, or employment in any entity engaged in or 
     otherwise associated with an infrastructure project assisted 
     under this Act during the 2-year period beginning on the date 
     on which such member ceases to serve on the Board.
       (B) Exception for members who serve full term.--The 
     limitation contained in subparagraph (A) does not apply to 
     any member who has ceased to serve on the Board after serving 
     the full term for which such member was appointed.
       (3) Certification.--Upon taking office, each member of the 
     Board shall certify under oath that such member has complied 
     with this subsection, and such certification shall be filed 
     with the secretary of the Board.

     SEC. 103. STAFF AND PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Executive Director.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairperson may appoint and terminate, 
     and fix the compensation of, an executive director of the 
     Bank, in accordance with title 5, United States Code.
       (2) Confirmation of executive director.--The employment of 
     an executive director

[[Page S10617]]

     shall be subject to confirmation by the Board.
       (3) Qualifications of executive director.--An individual 
     appointed as the executive director under paragraph (1) shall 
     have demonstrated expertise in--
       (A) transit infrastructure;
       (B) public housing infrastructure;
       (C) road and bridge infrastructure;
       (D) water infrastructure; or
       (E) public finance.
       (b) Other Personnel.--The Board may appoint and terminate, 
     and fix the compensation of, in accordance with title 5, 
     United States Code, such personnel as are necessary to enable 
     the Bank to perform the duties of the Bank.
       (c) Inspector General.--
       (1) In general.--Section 11 of the Inspector General Act of 
     1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``the Chairperson of the 
     National Infrastructure Bank;'' after ``the Chairperson of 
     the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``the National 
     Infrastructure Bank;'' after ``the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation;''.
       (2) Executive schedule level iv.--Section 5315 of title 5, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to the Inspector General of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation, the following:
       ``Inspector General, National Infrastructure Bank.''.
       (d) Support From Other Agencies.--The head of any other 
     Federal agency may detail employees to the Bank for purposes 
     of carrying out the duties of the Bank.
       (e) Compensation of Board Members.--
       (1) Chairperson.--Section 5314 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to the 
     Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Federal Deposit 
     Insurance Corporation, the following:
       ``Chairperson, Board of Directors, National Infrastructure 
     Bank.''.
       (2) Other members.--Section 5315 of title 5, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to the 
     Inspector General of the Federal Deposit Insurance 
     Corporation, the following:
       ``Member, Board of Directors of the National Infrastructure 
     Bank.''.

                TITLE II--POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BANK

     SEC. 201. POWERS OF THE BANK BOARD.

       (a) Hearings.--The Board may, in carrying out this Act--
       (1) hold such hearings, meet and act at such times and 
     places, take such testimony, receive such evidence, and 
     administer such oaths, as the Board considers advisable; and
       (2) require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and 
     testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, 
     records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, documents, tapes, 
     and materials, as the Board considers advisable.
       (b) Issuance and Enforcement of Subpoenas.--
       (1) Issuance.--A subpoena issued under subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (A) bear the signature of the Chairperson and a majority of 
     the members of the Board; and
       (B) be served by any person or class of persons designated 
     by the Chairperson for that purpose.
       (2) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy or failure to 
     obey a subpoena issued under subsection (a)(2), the United 
     States district court for the district in which the 
     subpoenaed person resides, is served, or may be found may 
     issue an order requiring the person to appear at any 
     designated place to testify or to produce documentary or 
     other evidence.
       (3) Noncompliance.--Any failure to obey the order of the 
     court may be punished by the court as a contempt of court.
       (c) Witness Allowances and Fees.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1821 of title 28, United States 
     Code, shall apply to a witness requested or subpoenaed to 
     appear at a hearing of the Board.
       (2) Expenses.--The per diem and mileage allowances for a 
     witness shall be paid from funds available to pay the 
     expenses of the Board.
       (d) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Board may, upon 
     request, secure directly from a Federal agency, such 
     information as the Board considers necessary to carry out 
     this Act, and the head of such agency shall promptly respond 
     to any such request for the provision of information.
       (e) Incorporation of Federal Transit Processes for Board 
     Statements.--Section 5334(l) of title 49, United States Code, 
     as added by section 3032 of the Federal Public Transportation 
     Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-59, 119 Stat. 1627), shall apply 
     to statements of the Board in the same manner and to the same 
     extent as that section applies to statements of the 
     Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration.

     SEC. 202. QUALIFIED INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT RATINGS.

       (a) In General.--The Bank shall, upon application and 
     otherwise in accordance with this section, designate 
     infrastructure projects as qualified projects for purposes of 
     assistance under this Act.
       (b) Applicants.--The Bank shall accept applications for the 
     designation of qualified infrastructure projects under this 
     section from among public sponsors, for any infrastructure 
     project having--
       (1) a potential Federal commitment of an amount that is not 
     less than $75,000,000;
       (2) a public sponsor; and
       (3) regional or national significance.
       (c) Guidelines for Developing Projects.--The Secretary 
     shall establish guidelines to assist grant recipients under 
     this title to develop applications for funding under this 
     section. The guidelines shall include the objectives listed 
     in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 105(e) of the Housing 
     and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(e)).
       (d) Ratings.--In making a determination as to a designation 
     of a qualified infrastructure project, the Board shall 
     evaluate and rate each applicant based on the factors 
     appropriate for that type of infrastructure project, which 
     shall include--
       (1) for any transit project--
       (A) regional or national significance;
       (B) promotion of economic growth;
       (C) reduction in traffic congestion;
       (D) environmental benefits, including reduction in 
     pollution from reduced use of automobiles from direct trip 
     reduction and indirect trip reduction through land use and 
     density changes;
       (E) urban land use policies, including those that promote 
     smart growth; and
       (F) mobility improvements;
       (2) for any public housing project--
       (A) regional or national significance;
       (B) promotion of economic growth;
       (C) improvement of the physical shape and layout of public 
     housing;
       (D) environmental improvement;
       (E) urban land use policies, including those that promote 
     smart growth;
       (F) reduction of poverty concentration;
       (G) mobility improvements for residents; and
       (H) establishment of positive incentives for resident self-
     sufficiency and comprehensive services that empower 
     residents;
       (3) for any highway, bridge, or road project--
       (A) regional or national significance;
       (B) promotion of economic growth;
       (C) reduction in traffic congestion;
       (D) environmental improvement;
       (E) urban land use policies, including those that promote 
     smart growth; and
       (F) mobility improvements; and
       (4) for any water project--
       (A) regional or national significance;
       (B) promotion of economic growth;
       (C) health benefits from the associated projects, including 
     health care cost reduction due to removal of pollutants; and
       (D) environmental benefits.
       (e) Determination Among Projects of Different 
     Infrastructure Types.--The Bank shall establish, by rule, 
     comprehensive criteria for allocating qualified status among 
     different types of infrastructure projects for purposes of 
     this Act--
       (1) including--
       (A) a full view of the project benefits, as compared to 
     project costs;
       (B) a preference for projects that have national or 
     substantial regional impact;
       (C) a preference for projects which leverage private 
     financing, including public-private partnerships, for either 
     the explicit cost of the project or for enhancements which 
     increase the benefits of the project;
       (D) an understanding of the importance of balanced 
     investment in various types of infrastructure, as emphasized 
     in the current allocation of Federal resources between modes; 
     and
       (E) an understanding of the importance of diverse 
     investment in infrastructure in all regions of the country; 
     and
       (2) that do not eliminate any project based on size, but 
     rather allow for selection of the projects that are most 
     meritorious.
       (f) Process and Personnel for Creating Ratings Process.--
       (1) In general.--The ratings processes described in this 
     section shall be subject to Federal notice and rulemaking 
     procedures.
       (2) Participation by other agency personnel.--The ratings, 
     and development of the ratings process, shall be conducted by 
     personnel on detail to the Bank from the Department of 
     Transportation, the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and 
     other relevant departments and agencies from among 
     individuals who are familiar with and experienced in the 
     selection criteria for competitive projects. The Bank shall 
     reimburse those departments and agencies for the staff which 
     are on detail to the Bank.
       (g) Compliance With Other Applicable Law.--Projects 
     receiving financial assistance from the Bank under this 
     section shall comply with applicable provisions of Federal 
     law and regulations, including--
       (1) for transit, requirements that would apply to a project 
     receiving funding under section 5307 of title 49, United 
     States Code;
       (2) for public housing, requirements that would apply to a 
     project receiving funding from a grant under section 24 of 
     the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437v);
       (3) for roads and bridges, requirements that would apply to 
     a project that receives funds apportioned under section 
     104(b)(3) of title 23, United States Code; and
       (4) for water, requirements that would apply to a project 
     that receives funds through a grant or loan under--
       (A) section 103 of the Housing and Community Development 
     Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5303);
       (B) section 1452 of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300j-12); or
       (C) section 601 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
     (33 U.S.C. 1381), as that section applied before the 
     beginning of fiscal year 1995.

[[Page S10618]]

       (h) Authority To Determine Funding.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Bank shall determine the 
     appropriate Federal share of funds for each project described 
     in subsection (g) for purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 203. DEVELOPMENT OF FINANCING PACKAGE.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which the Board determines appropriate financing packages for 
     qualified infrastructure projects under section 202, the 
     Board shall notify the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate.
       (b) Financing Packages.--The Board is authorized--
       (1) to act as a centralized entity to provide financing for 
     qualified infrastructure projects;
       (2) to issue general purpose infrastructure bonds, and to 
     provide direct subsidies to qualified infrastructure projects 
     from amounts made available from the issuance of such bonds;
       (3) to issue project-based infrastructure bonds for the 
     financing of specific qualified infrastructure projects;
       (4) to provide loan guarantees to State or local 
     governments issuing debt to finance qualified infrastructure 
     projects, under rules prescribed by the Board, in a manner 
     similar to that described in chapter 6 of title 23, United 
     States Code;
       (5) to issue loans, at varying interest rates, including 
     very low interest rates, to qualified project sponsors for 
     qualified projects;
       (6) to leverage resources and stimulate public and private 
     investment in infrastructure; and
       (7) to encourage States to create additional opportunities 
     for the financing of infrastructure projects.
       (c) General Purpose and Infrastructure Bonds.--General 
     purpose and project-based infrastructure bonds issued by the 
     Bank under this Act shall be subject to such terms and 
     limitations as may be established by rules of the Bank, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.
       (d) Bond Obligation Limit.--The aggregate outstanding 
     amount of all bonds authorized to be issued under this Act 
     may not exceed $60,000,000,000.
       (e) Full Faith and Credit.--Any obligation issued by the 
     Bank under this Act shall be an obligation supported by the 
     full faith and credit of the United States.
       (f) Limitation on Funds From Bond Issuance.--Not more than 
     1 percent of funds resulting from the issuance of bonds under 
     this Act may be used to fund the operations of the Bank.

     SEC. 204. COUPON NOTES FOR HOLDERS OF INFRASTRUCTURE BONDS.

       (a) Issuance of Coupon Notes.--Under regulations prescribed 
     by the Bank, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury, there may be a separation (including at issuance) 
     of the ownership of an infrastructure bond and the 
     entitlement to the interest with respect to such bond (in 
     this section referred to as a ``coupon note''). In case of 
     any such separation, such interest shall be allowed to the 
     person who on the payment date holds the instrument 
     evidencing the entitlement to the interest, and not to the 
     holder of the bond.
       (b) Redemption of Coupon Notes.--A coupon note may be used 
     by the owner thereof for the purpose of making any payment to 
     the Federal Government, and shall be accepted for such 
     purpose by the Secretary of the Treasury, subject to rules 
     issued by the Bank, in consultation with the Secretary of the 
     Treasury.

     SEC. 205. EXEMPTION FROM LOCAL TAXATION.

       Bonds and other obligations issued by the Bank, and the 
     interest on or credits with respect to its bonds or other 
     obligations, shall not be subject to taxation by any State, 
     county, municipality, or local taxing authority.

                     TITLE III--STUDIES AND REPORTS

     SEC. 301. REPORT; DATABASE.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Board 
     shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate a report describing the activities of 
     the Board, for the fiscal year covered by the report, 
     relating to--
       (1) the evaluations of qualified infrastructure projects 
     under section 202; and
       (2) the financing packages of qualified infrastructure 
     projects under section 203.
       (b) Database.--The Bank shall develop, maintain, and update 
     a publicly-accessible database that contains--
       (1) a description of each qualified infrastructure project 
     that receives funding from the Bank under this Act--
       (A) by project mode or modes;
       (B) by project location;
       (C) by project sponsor or sponsors; and
       (D) by project total cost;
       (2) the amount of funding that each qualified 
     infrastructure project receives from the Bank under this Act; 
     and
       (3) the form of financing that each qualified 
     infrastructure project receives from the Bank under section 
     203.

     SEC. 302. STUDY AND REPORT ON INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING 
                   MECHANISMS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and every 3 years thereafter, the 
     Board shall conduct a study evaluating the effectiveness of 
     each Federal financing mechanism that is used to support an 
     infrastructure system of the United States.
       (b) Requirements.--A study conducted under subsection (a) 
     shall--
       (1) evaluate the economic efficacy and transparency of each 
     financing mechanism used by--
       (A) the Bank to fund qualified infrastructure projects; and
       (B) each agency and department of the Federal Government to 
     support infrastructure systems, including--
       (i) infrastructure formula funding;
       (ii) user fees; and
       (iii) modal taxes; and
       (2) contain recommendations for improving each funding 
     mechanism evaluated under subparagraphs (A) and (B) of 
     paragraph (1) to increase the economic efficacy and 
     transparency of the Bank, and each agency and department of 
     the Federal Government, to finance infrastructure projects in 
     the United States.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date on which 
     the Board completes the study conducted under subsection (a), 
     the Board shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, 
     and Urban Affairs of the Senate, a report containing each 
     evaluation and recommendation contained in the study.

     SEC. 303. GAO REPORT.

       Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     submit to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate, a report evaluating the activities of 
     the Bank for the fiscal years covered by the report, 
     including--
       (1) the evaluations of qualified infrastructure projects 
     under section 202; and
       (2) the financing packages of qualified infrastructure 
     projects under section 203.
                                  ____

                                            Center for Strategic &


                                        International Studies,

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 2007.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Hon. Chuck Hagel,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd and Senator Hagel: I am writing to 
     commend you for your leadership in helping to restore 
     America's deteriorating physical infrastructure. You both 
     have demonstrated great foresight and vision in leading on 
     this important issue.
       Three years ago, the Center for Strategic and International 
     Studies launched a study effort under the leadership of 
     former Ambassador Felix Rohatyn and former Senator Warren 
     Rudman. The CSIS Commission on Public Infrastructure issued a 
     declaration of guiding principles for the revitalization of 
     our infrastructure. We were proud that you joined in that 
     declaration. Signatories included senators, governors, and 
     business leaders, all recognizing the need for action.
       You have acted. While CSIS cannot endorse specific 
     legislation, we can congratulate you as leaders. From the 
     very first days of our republic, our national leaders saw the 
     need for public investment in productive infrastructure. 
     Public investment produced wealth-generating private sector 
     activity, paying back the public investment many times over.
       The commission also called for infrastructure investments 
     made through a rigorous cost-benefit process. Too much public 
     investment in recent years has been earmarked for projects 
     that have not gone through an analytic justification. Your 
     leadership here is also most welcome.
       I travel extensively and see how infrastructure investments 
     are transforming the developing world. Faced by this 
     competition, America needs to make public infrastructure a 
     comparable priority as a national re-investment to ensure our 
     future prosperity.
       Thank you for your leadership. This is the kind of vision 
     that built America to greatness in the past and will be our 
     path to prosperity in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                                    John J. Hamre,
     President and CEO.
                                  ____

                                                   August 1, 2007.
       As co-chairmen of the CSIS Commission on Public 
     Infrastructure, we strongly support the National 
     Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007.
       Introduced by Senators Chris Dodd and Chuck Hagel, this 
     bipartisan legislation will reverse decades of shortchanging 
     our infrastructure and help restructure the federal role by 
     allocating costs and financing more fairly and rationally. 
     The legislation also will help ensure that infrastructure 
     spending is unencumbered by political interference that 
     neglects regional and national priorities. The Act will 
     establish a policy structure for making infrastructure 
     investments that meet our country's critical needs.
       The Infrastructure Bank Act will stimulate new, long-term 
     investments in infrastructure that will increase national 
     productivity and improve our standard of living. The proposed 
     Infrastructure Bank Act also will increase the ability of the 
     private sector to play a central role in infrastructure 
     provision and will report on the economic efficacy and 
     transparency of all current federal financing methods. We 
     urge that it be passed into law.

[[Page S10619]]

     
                                  ____
                                                             ASCE,


                          American Society of Civil Engineers,

                                   Washington, DC, August 1, 2007.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Hon. Chuck Hagel,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd, Senator Hagel: I am writing on behalf of 
     the more than 140,000 members of the American Society of 
     Civil Engineers (ASCE) to applaud your joint sponsorship of 
     the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. This 
     legislation is a major step forward in providing meaningful 
     financial assistance to the nation's failing infrastructure.
       As you know, ASCE concluded in our 2005 Report Card for 
     America's Infrastructure that the nation's infrastructure 
     deserved an overall grade of ``D.'' We said then that 
     America's aging and overburdened infrastructure threatens the 
     economy and quality of life in every state, city, and town in 
     the nation. In addition, we estimated that it will take an 
     investment of $1.6 trillion over a five-year period to bring 
     the nation's existing infrastructure into good working order. 
     Little of significance has changed in the two years since we 
     issued that dismal grade, and establishing a long-term 
     development and maintenance plan remains a pressing national 
     priority.
       In creating the National Infrastructure Bank to evaluate 
     and finance ``capacity-building'' infrastructure projects of 
     substantial regional and national significance, the bill 
     would prime the pump to begin meeting the staggering 
     investment needs for our infrastructure. We believe the 
     National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007 will begin the 
     process of replacing and maintaining economically vital 
     infrastructure systems across the nation. This nation cannot 
     afford to wait much longer to invest significant sums in its 
     infrastructure, and your bill will lead the way.
       Please do not hesitate to contact Brian Pallasch, ASCE 
     Director of Government Relations, or Michael Charles, Senior 
     Manager of Government Relations, of our Washington office if 
     we can be of any assistance in passing this important 
     legislation.
           Sincerely yours,
                                  Patrick J. Natale, P.E., F.ASCE,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____



                               National Construction Alliance,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 2007.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Hon. Chuck Hagel,
     U.S. Senate Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Dodd and Hagel: The National Construction 
     Alliance represents three of the largest construction unions, 
     the Laborers' International Union of North America, the 
     International Union of Operating Engineers, and the United 
     Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 
     representing over 1.7 million members.
       We want to go on record in support of your National 
     Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007.
       We fully understand the need and responsibility we have to 
     our nation and to our members to find a way to fund 
     substantial regional and significant national infrastructure 
     projects.
       We look forward to working with you and your colleagues in 
     making the Dodd/Hagel National Infrastructure Bank Act of 
     2007 a permanent part of the solution to funding our nation's 
     most important infrastructure projects.
           Sincerely,
                                               Raymond J. Poupore,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                                          Goldman, Sachs & Co.

                                New York, New York, July 27, 2007.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Hon. Chuck Hagel,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Dodd and Senator Hagel: Thank you for the 
     opportunity to review your proposed National Infrastructure 
     Bank Act of 2007. Goldman Sachs shares your concern about our 
     nation's aging infrastructure and its negative effects on our 
     economy and our environment, and we strongly agree with you 
     about the need to encourage additional infrastructure 
     investment. We believe enactment of your legislation would 
     help spur significant new investment in this area and thereby 
     help address this urgent national problem.
       We support the National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007 and 
     thank you for your leadership on this critical issue.
           Sincerely,
     Tracy R. Wolstencroft.
                                  ____

                                    American Public Transportation


                                                  Association,

                                    Washington DC, August 1, 2007.
     Hon. Christopher Dodd,
     Hon. Chuck Hagel,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Dodd and Hagel: On behalf of the more than 
     1,500 member organizations of the American Public 
     Transportation Association (APTA), I want to applaud your 
     proposal to create a National Infrastructure Bank. As we look 
     to the future, high-quality public transportation service 
     must be available to more Americans and in more communities. 
     Public transportation helps to reduce congestion and 
     increases mobility. Transit also significantly reduces energy 
     consumption, saving more than 1.4 billion gallons of gasoline 
     every year. Americans are choosing to ride transit in record 
     numbers, taking more than 10.1 billion trips in 2006. 
     Unfortunately, only 54 percent of households have access to 
     transit of any kind as they plan their daily travel.
       Much of the success of public transportation is due to 
     federal investment in public transportation infrastructure, 
     and the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank would 
     extend valuable new federal resources to transit investment. 
     The innovative financing and investment tools of a National 
     Infrastructure Bank would aid the development and expansion 
     of fixed guideway systems. These major projects require 
     significant investments, but they are crucial to attracting 
     new riders. Federal support for new starts has helped to 
     finance 127 new fixed guideway systems and system extensions 
     which have gone into service since 1995. Looking ahead, such 
     systems are more necessary than ever to address rapidly 
     growing levels of congestion and to meet additional demands 
     for travel. According to an APTA survey, new capital funds 
     are needed for some 280 projects that will add 4,044 system 
     miles of fixed guideway transit.
       If we expect our surface transportation infrastructure 
     system to continue to provide a competitive edge for the 
     United States, federal, state and local investment in public 
     transportation is necessary, and new financing mechanisms 
     like the National Infrastructure Bank must be investigated. 
     APTA thanks you for your commitment to the further expansion 
     of public transportation, and we look forward to working with 
     you to advance your proposal.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                William W. Millar,
                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCONNELL (for himself and Mr. Bond):
  S. 1927. A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
1978 to provide additional procedures for authorizing certain 
acquisitions of foreign intelligence information and for other 
purposes; read the first time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 1927

       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 ``Protect America Act of 
     2007''.

     SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN 
                   ACQUISITIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE 
                   INFORMATION.

       The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     105 the following:


   ``CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE 
                             UNITED STATES

       ``Sec. 105A.  Nothing in the definition of electronic 
     surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to 
     encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably 
     believed to be located outside of the United States.


``ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING 
               PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

       ``Sec. 105B.  (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the 
     Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, 
     may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition 
     of foreign intelligence information concerning persons 
     reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the 
     Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General 
     determine, based on the information provided to them, that--
       ``(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for 
     determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence 
     information under this section concerns persons reasonably 
     believed to be located outside the United States, and such 
     procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to 
     section 105C of this Act;
       ``(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic 
     surveillance;
       ``(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign 
     intelligence information from or with the assistance of a 
     communications service provider, custodian, or other person 
     (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified 
     person of such service provider, custodian, or other person) 
     who has access to communications, either as they are 
     transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is 
     being or may be used to transmit or store such 
     communications;
       ``(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain 
     foreign intelligence information; and
       ``(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect 
     to such acquisition activity meet the definition of 
     minimization procedures under section 101(h).
       ``This determination shall be in the form of a written 
     certification, under oath, supported as appropriate by 
     affidavit of appropriate officials in the national security 
     field occupying positions appointed by the President, by and 
     with the consent of the Senate, or the Head of any Agency of 
     the Intelligence Community, unless immediate action by the 
     Government is required and time does not permit the 
     preparation of a certification.

[[Page S10620]]

     In such a case, the determination of the Director of National 
     Intelligence and the Attorney General shall be reduced to a 
     certification as soon as possible but in no event more than 
     72 hours after the determination is made.
       ``(b) A certification under subsection (a) is not required 
     to identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or 
     property at which the acquisition of foreign intelligence 
     information will be directed.
       ``(c) The Attorney General shall transmit as soon as 
     practicable under seal to the court established under section 
     103(a) a copy of a certification made under subsection (a). 
     Such certification shall be maintained under security 
     measures established by the Chief Justice of the United 
     States and the Attorney General, in consultation with the 
     Director of National Intelligence, and shall remain sealed 
     unless the certification is necessary to determine the 
     legality of the acquisition under section 105B.
       ``(d) An acquisition under this section may be conducted 
     only in accordance with the certification of the Director of 
     National Intelligence and the Attorney General, or their oral 
     instructions if time does not permit the preparation of a 
     certification, and the minimization procedures adopted by the 
     Attorney General. The Director of National Intelligence and 
     the Attorney General shall assess compliance with such 
     procedures and shall report such assessments to the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives and the Select Committee on Intelligence of 
     the Senate under section 108(a).
       ``(e) With respect to an authorization of an acquisition 
     under section 105B, the Director of National Intelligence and 
     Attorney General may direct a person to--
       ``(1) immediately provide the Government with all 
     information, facilities, and assistance necessary to 
     accomplish the acquisition in such a manner as will protect 
     the secrecy of the acquisition and produce a minimum of 
     interference with the services that such person is providing 
     to the target; and
       ``(2) maintain under security procedures approved by the 
     Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence 
     any records concerning the acquisition or the aid furnished 
     that such person wishes to maintain.
       ``(f) The Government shall compensate, at the prevailing 
     rate, a person for providing information, facilities, or 
     assistance pursuant to subsection (e).
       ``(g) In the case of a failure to comply with a directive 
     issued pursuant to subsection (e), the Attorney General may 
     invoke the aid of the court established under section 103(a) 
     to compel compliance with the directive. The court shall 
     issue an order requiring the person to comply with the 
     directive if it finds that the directive was issued in 
     accordance with subsection (e) and is otherwise lawful. 
     Failure to obey an order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as contempt of court. Any process under this section 
     may be served in any judicial district in which the person 
     may be found.
       ``(h)(1)(A) A person receiving a directive issued pursuant 
     to subsection (e) may challenge the legality of that 
     directive by filing a petition with the pool established 
     under section 103(e)(1).
       ``(B) The presiding judge designated pursuant to section 
     103(b) shall assign a petition filed under subparagraph (A) 
     to one of the judges serving in the pool established by 
     section 103(e)(1). Not later than 48 hours after the 
     assignment of such petition, the assigned judge shall conduct 
     an initial review of the directive. If the assigned judge 
     determines that the petition is frivolous, the assigned judge 
     shall immediately deny the petition and affirm the directive 
     or any part of the directive that is the subject of the 
     petition. If the assigned judge determines the petition is 
     not frivolous, the assigned judge shall, within 72 hours, 
     consider the petition in accordance with the procedures 
     established under section 103(e)(2) and provide a written 
     statement for the record of the reasons for any determination 
     under this subsection.
       ``(2) A judge considering a petition to modify or set aside 
     a directive may grant such petition only if the judge finds 
     that such directive does not meet the requirements of this 
     section or is otherwise unlawful. If the judge does not 
     modify or set aside the directive, the judge shall 
     immediately affirm such directive, and order the recipient to 
     comply with such directive.
       ``(3) Any directive not explicitly modified or set aside 
     under this subsection shall remain in full effect.
       ``(i) The Government or a person receiving a directive 
     reviewed pursuant to subsection (h) may file a petition with 
     the Court of Review established under section 103(b) for 
     review of the decision issued pursuant to subsection (h) not 
     later than 7 days after the issuance of such decision. Such 
     court of review shall have jurisdiction to consider such 
     petitions and shall provide for the record a written 
     statement of the reasons for its decision. On petition for a 
     writ of certiorari by the Government or any person receiving 
     such directive, the record shall be transmitted under seal to 
     the Supreme Court, which shall have jurisdiction to review 
     such decision.
       ``(j) Judicial proceedings under this section shall be 
     concluded as expeditiously as possible. The record of 
     proceedings, including petitions filed, orders granted, and 
     statements of reasons for decision, shall be maintained under 
     security measures established by the Chief Justice of the 
     United States, in consultation with the Attorney General and 
     the Director of National Intelligence.
       ``(k) All petitions under this section shall be filed under 
     seal. In any proceedings under this section, the court shall, 
     upon request of the Government, review ex parte and in camera 
     any Government submission, or portions of a submission, which 
     may include classified information.
       ``(l) Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action 
     shall lie in any court against any person for providing any 
     information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a 
     directive under this section.
       ``(m) A directive made or an order granted under this 
     section shall be retained for a period of not less than 10 
     years from the date on which such directive or such order is 
     made.''.

     SEC. 3. SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF 
                   PROCEDURES.

       The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 
     105B the following:


               ``SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW OF PROCEDURES

       ``Sec. 105C.  (a) No later than 120 days after the 
     effective date of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit 
     to the Court established under section 103(a), the procedures 
     by which the Government determines that acquisitions 
     conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute 
     electronic surveillance. The procedures submitted pursuant to 
     this section shall be updated and submitted to the Court on 
     an annual basis.
       ``(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of 
     this Act, the court established under section 103(a) shall 
     assess the Government's determination under section 
     105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to 
     ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B 
     do not constitute electronic surveillance. The court's review 
     shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is 
     clearly erroneous.
       ``(c) If the court concludes that the determination is not 
     clearly erroneous, it shall enter an order approving the 
     continued use of such procedures. If the court concludes that 
     the determination is clearly erroneous, it shall issue an 
     order directing the Government to submit new procedures 
     within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under section 105B 
     that are implicated by the court's order.
       ``(d) The Government may appeal any order issued under 
     subsection (c) to the court established under section 103(b). 
     If such court determines that the order was properly entered, 
     the court shall immediately provide for the record a written 
     statement of each reason for its decision, and, on petition 
     of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the record 
     shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the 
     United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such 
     decision. Any acquisitions affected by the order issued under 
     subsection (c) of this section may continue during the 
     pendency of any appeal, the period during which a petition 
     for writ of certiorari may be pending, and any review by the 
     Supreme Court of the United States.''.

     SEC. 4. REPORTING TO CONGRESS.

       On a semi-annual basis the Attorney General shall inform 
     the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate, the 
     Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of 
     Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary of the 
     Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives, concerning acquisitions under this section 
     during the previous 6-month period. Each report made under 
     this section shall include--
       (1) a description of any incidents of non-compliance with a 
     directive issued by the Attorney General and the Director of 
     National Intelligence under section 105B, to include--
       (A) incidents of non-compliance by an element of the 
     Intelligence Community with guidelines or procedures 
     established for determining that the acquisition of foreign 
     intelligence authorized by the Attorney General and Director 
     of National Intelligence concerns persons reasonably to be 
     outside the United States; and
       (B) incidents of noncompliance by a specified person to 
     whom the Attorney General and Director of National 
     Intelligence issue a directive under this section; and
       (2) the number of certifications and directives issued 
     during the reporting period.

     SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 103(e) of the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(e)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``501(f)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``105B(h) or 501(f)(1)''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``501(f)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``105B(h) or 501(f)(1)''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents in the first 
     section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 
     (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 105 the following:

``105A.Clarification of electronic surveillance of persons outside the 
              United States.
``105B.Additional procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions 
              concerning persons located outside the United States.
``105C. Submission to court review of procedures.''.

     SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE; TRANSITION PROCEDURES.

       (a) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise provided, the 
     amendments made by this Act

[[Page S10621]]

     shall take effect immediately after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.
       (b) Transition Procedures.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of this Act, any order in effect on the date of 
     enactment of this Act issued pursuant to the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et 
     seq.) shall remain in effect until the date of expiration of 
     such order, and, at the request of the applicant, the court 
     established under section 103 (a) of such Act (50 U.S.C. 
     1803(a)) shall reauthorize such order as long as the facts 
     and circumstances continue to justify issuance of such order 
     under the provisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
     Act of 1978, as in effect on the day before the applicable 
     effective date of this Act. The Government also may file new 
     applications, and the court established under section 103(a) 
     of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 
     U.S.C. 1803(a)) shall enter orders granting such applications 
     pursuant to such Act, as long as the application meets the 
     requirements set forth under the provisions of such Act as in 
     effect on the day before the effective date of this Act. At 
     the request of the applicant, the court established under 
     section 103(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
     of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803(a)), shall extinguish any extant 
     authorization to conduct electronic surveillance or physical 
     search entered pursuant to such Act. Any surveillance 
     conducted pursuant to an order entered under this subsection 
     shall be subject to the provisions of the Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et 
     seq.), as in effect on the day before the effective date of 
     this Act.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KENNEDY (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Obama, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Feingold, and Ms. Cantwell):
  S. 1928. A bill to amend section 1977A of the Revised Statutes to 
equalize the remedies available under that section; to the Committee on 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, it is an honor to join my colleagues in 
introducing the Equal Remedies Act of 2007 to repeal the caps on the 
amount of damages available in employment discrimination cases under 
the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
  This legislation will end the glaring inequality in the current 
Federal antidiscrimination laws. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 gave 
women, religious minorities, and disabled workers the right to recover 
compensatory and punitive damages for intentional employment 
discrimination, but only up to certain specified monetary limits. By 
contrast, victims of such discrimination on the basis of race or 
national origin can recover damages without such limitations, because 
they can bring their cases under another statute. The Equal Remedies 
Act will remove this inequity by eliminating the caps on such damages 
under current law.
  The caps were included in the 1991 act as part of a compromise that 
the first President Bush would sign. That legislation also reversed a 
series of Supreme Court decisions that had rolled back other basic 
civil rights protections and made it more difficult for working 
Americans to challenge discrimination. The 1991 Act as a whole 
represented a significant advance in the ongoing battle to eliminate 
discrimination in the workplace.
  But, it's long past time to end the double standard that consigns 
women, religious minorities, and the disabled to second-class remedies 
under the civil rights laws.
  The caps are especially unfair, because they deny adequate remedies 
to the most severely injured victims of discrimination. For example, a 
woman who needs extensive medical treatment as a result of severe 
sexual harassment, such as an assault, she will be limited to receiving 
only partial compensation for her injury.
  The goal of providing damages is to hold employers accountable and to 
make victims whole to the greatest extent possible for the 
discrimination they suffered. The current limit prevents accountability 
and keeps the victim from obtaining full relief.
  The caps serve no justifiable purpose. They shield the worst 
employers from the full consequences of the most outrageous acts of 
discrimination. The deterrent purpose of damages fails when employers 
know that their liability is limited.
  Take, for example, Sharon Deters and her case against Equifax Credit 
Information Services. Sharon suffered constant sexual taunts and 
insults from her coworkers. Her supervisor praised her harassers' 
behavior and allowed it to continue. The jury in her case was so 
outraged by her employer's conduct that it awarded her $1 million in 
punitive damages, finding that such an award was necessary to get her 
employer's attention and make it change its ways. The caps on damages, 
however, reduced Sharon's award to $300,000.
  Results like that are not fair. They fail to fulfill the statutory 
purpose of such damages provision, which is to deter further 
violations. By passing the Equal Remedies Act of 2007, Congress will be 
affirming the basic principle of equal justice for all Americans. I 
urge my colleagues to join in supporting this important change.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. KYL (for himself and Mr. McCain):
  S. 1929. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting 
through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study 
of water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed; to 
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator 
McCain to introduce the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed Feasibility Study 
Act. This important piece of legislation is designed to authorize the 
Secretary of the Interior to study alternatives to augment the water 
supplies in a critical area of southern Arizona in the Sierra Vista 
Sub-watershed, which is home to a congressionally protected riparian 
area known as the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, 
SPRNCA, the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, and nearly 
76,000 residents.
  SPRNCA, which protects nearly 43 miles of the San Pedro River, serves 
as a principal passage for the migration of approximately 4 million 
birds. It also provides crucial habitat for 100 species of birds, 81 
species of mammals, 43 species of reptiles and amphibians, and two 
threatened species of native fish. The Nature Conservancy has called 
the area one of the ``last great places on earth.''
  Fort Huachuca, which is adjacent to SPRNCA, plays a critical role in 
this country's national security by, among other things, training 
soldiers in military intelligence. It also is the largest employer in 
the area, contributing greatly to the economy of Cochise County and the 
State of Arizona.
  In recent years, the Fort has done an exemplary job of implementing 
water conservation and recharge measures as part of its 
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Indeed, since 1995, 
it has reduced its groundwater pumping by more than 50 percent.
  Nevertheless, water levels in certain areas of the regional aquifer 
in the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed are still declining due to natural 
causes and development near Sierra Vista. Because SPRNCA and the fort 
could be negatively impacted by these declining water levels, a 2007 
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Appraisal level study concluded that 
augmenting the local water supply is necessary. To that end, 
Reclamation's study recommended several augmentation alternatives for 
further study, all of which are supported by the Upper San Pedro 
Partnership, a congressionally recognized consortium of 21 local, 
state, and Federal agencies and private organizations.
  The legislation I am introducing today would authorize the Secretary 
to conduct a feasibility study of the alternatives recommended by 
Reclamation for further study. The legislation would also authorize 
appropriations for the Federal share of the study's costs. Importantly, 
the non-Federal cost share would be at least 55 percent, indicating the 
non-Federal parties' strong commitment to the study.
  The feasibility study authorized under this legislation is the next 
step in the process of determining how to best address the water 
challenges facing the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed. Consequently, I urge 
my colleagues to support this legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Kerry, Ms. Snowe, 
        Mr. Feingold, Mr. Biden, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Obama):
  S. 1930. A bill to amend the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 to prevent 
illegal logging practices, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, about a year ago, a group of hardwood 
plywood

[[Page S10622]]

manufacturers came to me with a problem, Chinese hardwood plywood 
imports were threatening their businesses. They raised a whole host of 
issues, from tariff misclassification to subsidies to fraudulent 
labeling to illegal logging. These unfair and illegal practices were 
lowering the costs of the Chinese hardwood plywood imports, giving them 
an unfair advantage over U.S. hardwood plywood and putting American 
companies in jeopardy of going out of business and the folks that they 
employ out of work.
  Since that time, I have been working to level the playing field for 
Oregon hardwood plywood manufacturers and protect the jobs of the 
workers that they employ. I have met with the Department of Commerce, 
the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Customs and Border Patrol, 
and the International Trade Commission and urged them to investigate 
these issues and, where appropriate, act to address them. They have, 
raising these troubling practices in diplomatic negotiations, opening 
investigations, and even filing a case before the World Trade 
Organization targeting Chinese subsidies that benefit the hardwood 
plywood industry, among others.
  Today, with the support of industry, labor, and the environmental 
community, I am proud to introduce the Combat Illegal Logging Act of 
2007 to halt the trade in illegal timber and timber products. This act 
will help to level the playing field, not just for Oregon hardwood 
plywood manufacturers affected by Chinese imports, but for all American 
manufacturers across the country struggling to compete against 
imported, low-priced wood and wood products harvested from illegal 
sources.
  Equally important, the act helps address an illegal logging crisis. 
From the Amazon to the Congo Basin, from Sulawesi to Siberia, illegal 
logging is destroying ecosystems. It is gutting local economies. It is 
annihilating ways of life. Because of the speed and violence with which 
illegal logging is occurring, failing to curb its effects now may 
result in irreversible damage.
  The bill that I am introducing today can help curb illegal logging 
and thwart its devastating consequences.
  The Lacey Act currently regulates trade in fish, wildlife, and a 
limited subset of plants by making it unlawful to ``import, export, 
transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase'' any that are taken, 
possessed, transported or sold in violation of any State law or, with 
respect to fish and wildlife only, any foreign law. The Combat Illegal 
Logging Act of 2007 would expand the Lacey Act so that violations of 
foreign law that apply to plants and plant products fall within its 
protections. It would also specify the types of foreign law violations 
that trigger Lacey Act liability, laws intended to prevent theft or 
ensure the legal right to harvest the plants. Finally, the act would 
create a declaration requirement to facilitate the Lacey Act's 
enforcement for timber without placing an undue burden upon law-abiding 
businesses.
  The declaration requirements provide basic transparency for wood 
shipments. The declaration will have critical value for combating 
illegal logging by 1. encouraging importers to ask basic questions 
regarding the origin of their timber and timber products; 2. providing 
information at the point of import that will allow authorities with 
limited resources to do efficient, targeted inspections and 
enforcement; and 3. helping enforcement agents to immediately identify 
``low-hanging fruit,'' such as timber expressly prohibited to be 
exported.
  The act will definitely change the way that folks who are importing 
illegally harvested timber and wood products do business, this is its 
intended purpose. But for the many companies who already play by the 
rules, the act's requirements should result in minimal changes to the 
way they operate. Moreover, when the act's impact from a 
competitiveness standpoint is factored in, the effect is a net positive 
for these companies. This act changes the incentives to reward due 
diligence, a sound long-term business strategy from any perspective.
  This bill is the culmination of hundreds of hours of work by 
stakeholders that many might view as strange bedfellows. The principal 
negotiators of the compromise, the American Forest & Paper Association, 
the Hardwood Federation, and the Environmental Investigation Agency, 
deserve a tremendous amount of credit for sticking with this and 
finding a solution that everyone could support. I applaud them for 
their hard work, the maturity with which they approached the issue, and 
the respect that they showed each other throughout the process. Their 
conduct is a model for how things should work in Washington.
  I would also like to applaud the work of several of my colleagues in 
the House, Congressman Blumenauer, Congressman Wexler, and Congressman 
Weller, who introduced their own illegal logging bill, the Legal Timber 
Protection Act, earlier this year. I understand that their bill may be 
taken up by the House Natural Resources Committee this fall and I am 
hopeful that they will substitute the broadly supported text of the 
Combat Illegal Logging Act for their bill, paving the way for the 
enactment of this important piece of legislation.
  I would like to thank Senator Alexander, Senator Kerry, Senator 
Snowe, and Senator Feingold for agreeing to be original cosponsors of 
the bill. I would also like to thank the following organizations, in 
addition to the American Forest & Paper Association, the Hardwood 
Federation, and the Environmental Investigation Agency for endorsing 
the bill: Center for International Environmental Law, Conservation 
International, Defenders of Wildlife, Dogwood Alliance, ForestEthics, 
Friends of the Earth, Global Witness, Greenpeace, International 
Brotherhood of Teamsters, National Hardwood Lumber Association, Natural 
Resources Defense Council, Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest 
Alliance, Sierra Club, Society of American Foresters, Sustainable 
Furniture Council, The Nature Conservancy, Tropical Forest Trust, 
United Steelworkers, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wildlife 
Fund.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1930

       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 ``Combat Illegal Logging Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF ILLEGAL LOGGING PRACTICES.

       The Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 are amended--
       (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 3371)--
       (A) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following:
       ``(f) Plant.--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `plant' means any wild member 
     of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts, and 
     products thereof.
       ``(2) Exclusions.--The term `plant' excludes any common 
     food crop or cultivar that is a species not listed--
       ``(A) in the Convention on International Trade in 
     Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, done at 
     Washington on March 3, 1973 (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249); or
       ``(B) as an endangered or threatened species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).'';
       (B) in subsection (h), by inserting ``also'' after ``plants 
     the term''; and
       (C) by striking subsection (j) and inserting the following:
       ``(j) Take.--The term `take' means--
       ``(1) to capture, kill, or collect; and
       ``(2) with respect to a plant, also to harvest, cut, log, 
     or remove.'';
       (2) in section 3 (16 U.S.C. 3372)--
       (A) in subsection (a)--
       (i) in paragraph (2), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) any plant--
       ``(i) taken, transported, possessed, or sold in violation 
     of any foreign law or any law or regulation of any State that 
     protects plants or that regulates--

       ``(I) the theft of plants;
       ``(II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or 
     other officially protected area;
       ``(III) the taking of plants from an officially designated 
     area; or
       ``(IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, 
     required authorization;

       ``(ii) taken, transported, or exported without the payment 
     of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required by 
     any foreign law or by any law or regulation of any State; or
       ``(iii) exported or transshipped in violation of any 
     limitation under any foreign law or by any law or regulation 
     of any State; or''; and
       (ii) in paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(B) to possess any plant--
       ``(i) taken, transported, possessed, or sold in violation 
     of any foreign law or any law or

[[Page S10623]]

     regulation of any State that protects plants or that 
     regulates--

       ``(I) the theft of plants;
       ``(II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or 
     other officially protected area;
       ``(III) the taking of plants from an officially designated 
     area; or
       ``(IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, 
     required authorization;

       ``(ii) taken, transported, or exported without the payment 
     of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required by 
     any foreign law or by any law or regulation of any State; or
       ``(iii) exported or transshipped in violation of any 
     limitation under any foreign law or by any law or regulation 
     of any State; or''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Plant Declarations.--
       ``(1) In general.--Effective 180 days from the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, it shall be unlawful for any 
     person to import any plant unless the person files upon 
     importation where clearance is requested a declaration that 
     contains--
       ``(A) the scientific name of any plant (including the genus 
     and species of the plant) contained in the importation;
       ``(B) a description of--
       ``(i) the value of the importation; and
       ``(ii) the quantity, including the unit of measure, of the 
     plant; and
       ``(C) the name of the country from which the plant was 
     taken.
       ``(2) Declaration relating to plant products.--Until the 
     date on which the Secretary promulgates a regulation under 
     paragraph (5), a declaration relating to a plant product 
     shall--
       ``(A) in the case in which the species of plant used to 
     produce the plant product that is the subject of the 
     importation varies, and the species used to produce the plant 
     product is unknown, contain the name of each species of plant 
     that may have been used to produce the plant product; and
       ``(B) in the case in which the species of plant used to 
     produce the plant product that is the subject of the 
     importation is commonly taken from more than 1 country, and 
     the country from which the plant was taken and used to 
     produce the plant product is unknown, contain the name of 
     each country from which the plant may have been taken.
       ``(3) Review.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this subsection, the Secretary shall review the 
     implementation of each requirement described in paragraphs 
     (1) and (2).
       ``(4) Report.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     on which the Secretary completes the review under paragraph 
     (3), the Secretary shall submit to the appropriate committees 
     of Congress a report containing--
       ``(i) an evaluation of--

       ``(I) the effectiveness of each type of information 
     required under paragraphs (1) and (2) in assisting 
     enforcement of section 3; and
       ``(II) the potential to harmonize each requirement 
     described in paragraphs (1) and (2) with other applicable 
     import regulations in existence as of the date of the report;

       ``(ii) recommendations for such legislation as the 
     Secretary determines to be appropriate to assist in the 
     identification of plants that are imported into the United 
     States in violation of section 3; and
       ``(iii) an analysis of the effect of the provisions of 
     subsection (a) and (f) on--

       ``(I) the cost of legal plant imports; and
       ``(II) the extent and methodology of illegal logging 
     practices and trafficking.

       ``(B) Public participation.--In conducting the review under 
     paragraph (3), the Secretary shall provide public notice and 
     an opportunity for comment.
       ``(5) Promulgation of regulations.--Not later than 180 days 
     after the date on which the Secretary completes the review 
     under paragraph (3), the Secretary may promulgate 
     regulations--
       ``(A) to limit the applicability of any requirement 
     described in paragraph (2) to specific plant products; and
       ``(B) to make any other necessary modification to any 
     requirement described in paragraph (2), as determined by the 
     Secretary based on the review under paragraph (3).''; and
       (3) in section 7(a)(1) (16 U.S.C. 3376(a)(1)), by striking 
     ``section 4'' and inserting ``section 3(f), section 4,''.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. TESTER:
  S. 1931. A bill to amend the Mineral Leasing Act to ensure that 
development of certain Federal oil and gas resources will occur in a 
manner that protects water resources and respects the rights of surface 
owners, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Surface 
Owner Protection Act to help protect private property on split estates.
  The Western U.S. is experiencing a boom in oil and gas exploration 
that will contribute to the domestic supply of energy in this country, 
improve our National security and help control energy costs for 
American consumers. But if it is not done right oil and gas leasing can 
be damaging to wildlife, pollute our water, and scar the land. 
Furthermore, in many areas of the West the land is in split estates 
where mineral rights are owned by the Federal Government, but the 
surface is owned by a private land owner. Oftentimes the process of oil 
and gas leasing and drilling does not adequately involve surface owners 
or protect their agricultural livelihoods that are disrupted during 
energy development. Split estates cover 58 million acres in the U.S., 
and 11.7 million acres in Montana alone. That is just slightly smaller 
than the size of New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware combined.
  In states like Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado there has been a rapid 
increase in the number of leases and the amount of acreage that the 
Bureau of Land Management is approving for oil and gas exploration. It 
is expected that coal-bed methane development will bring tens of 
thousands of wells in coming decades. The rapid growth is causing 
general unease in some areas because surface owners have few rights 
when it comes to oil and gas exploration on their land.
  Too often surface owners have no idea that their minerals are owned 
by someone else or when they are going to be leased. The legislation I 
am introducing today is meant to better involve surface owners in the 
process of oil and gas exploration by requiring notification to surface 
owners when their land is going to be leased, require operators to 
replace any water that disrupts other users, and requires bonding for 
the reclamation of surface land. Surface owners should have a clear 
role in each step of the process from the day a lease sale is announced 
to the time when the rigs are gone and reclamation work is completed.
  Critics of this measure will argue that it gets in the way of 
drilling. I would say that oil and gas drilling should not get in the 
way of farmers and ranchers going about their business without clear 
legal guidelines. The protection of private property rights is 
crucially important as a personal freedom in the U.S. and we must take 
steps to protect them.
  I encourage members of this body to support this measure as we move 
forward because I believe that we can improve the way we conduct oil 
and gas leases on split estates. A better balance between oil and gas 
interests and surface owners is possible, but we need to make sure that 
we develop our energy resources in an appropriate manner with respect 
to private property owners.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Ensign, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Baucus, 
        Mrs. Murray, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, and Mr. Conrad):
  S. 1933. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to provide 
grants to small public drinking water systems; to the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, small rural water systems are facing 
compliance deadlines, and need assistance without burdensome matching 
funding requirements. The Small Community Drinking Water Funding Act 
that I am introducing today with Senators Ensign, Boxer, Murray, 
Clinton, Baucus, Sanders, and Conrad, amends the Safe Drinking Water 
Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
to establish a Small Public Water System Assistance Program. This 
program is to support small water systems in complying with national 
primary drinking water regulations, and includes a program for Indian 
tribes.
  The smallest public water systems, which serve fewer than 3,300 
people, represent 85 percent of all public water systems. Small public 
water systems serving fewer than 10,000 people represent 94 percent of 
all public water systems. Small communities throughout Nevada would 
benefit from a grant program designed to provide funding for water 
quality projects without a difficult matching requirement; and Federal 
programs in effect as of the date of enactment of this act do not 
adequately meet the needs of small communities in Nevada with respect 
to public water systems. The Small Community Drinking Water Funding Act 
will authorize $750,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 
2014. Nevada should be able to secure a substantial portion of this 
funding because of the State's rural water systems needs.

[[Page S10624]]

  The purpose of this bill is to establish a program to provide grants 
to small public water systems to meet applicable national primary 
drinking water regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Second, 
maintain water costs at a reasonable level for the communities served 
by small public water systems. Third, obtain technical assistance to 
develop the capacity to sustain operations over the long term.
  This legislation is intended to ensure that our Nation's small, 
disadvantaged communities have access to the financial help they need 
to provide safe, reliable, and affordable drinking water with the 
authorization of $750 million annually for 7 years starting next year. 
The Small Community Safe Drinking Water Act provides substantial 
flexibility to States.
  Nevada's small communities are facing a drinking water infrastructure 
crisis. These communities, and other small communities nationwide, 
confront increasing demand for clean, reliable, and affordable drinking 
water. But it is simply too costly for small communities, alone, to 
address this water infrastructure crisis.
  They need a financial helping hand from the Federal Government.
  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. 1933

       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 ``Small Community Drinking 
     Water Funding Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) in some cases, drinking water standards in effect and 
     proposed as of the date of enactment of this Act can place 
     large financial burdens on public water systems, especially 
     systems that serve fewer than a few thousand people;
       (2) some small public water systems have experienced water 
     contamination problems that may pose a significant risk to 
     the health of water consumers;
       (3) small communities are concerned about improving 
     drinking water quality;
       (4) the limited scientific, technical, and professional 
     resources of many small communities make understanding and 
     implementing regulatory requirements very difficult;
       (5) small communities often struggle to meet water quality 
     standards because of difficulty in securing funding;
       (6) small communities often lack a tax base or 
     opportunities to benefit from economics of scale and 
     therefore face very high per capita costs in improving 
     drinking water quality;
       (7) the smallest public water systems, which serve fewer 
     than 3,300 people, represent 85 percent of all public water 
     systems;
       (8) small public water systems serving fewer than 10,000 
     people represent 94 percent of all public water systems;
       (9) small communities would benefit from a grant program 
     designed to provide funding for water quality projects 
     without a substantial matching requirement; and
       (10) Federal programs in effect as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act do not adequately meet the needs of small 
     communities with respect to public water systems.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to establish a 
     program to provide grants to small public water systems to--
       (1) meet applicable national primary drinking water 
     regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f 
     et seq.);
       (2) maintain water costs at a reasonable level for the 
     communities served by small public water systems; and
       (3) obtain technical assistance to develop the capacity to 
     sustain operations over the long term.

     SEC. 3. SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) Definition of Indian Tribe.--Section 1401(14) of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f(14)) is amended in 
     the second sentence by striking ``1452,'' and inserting 
     ``1452 and part G,''.
       (b) Establishment of Program.--The Safe Drinking Water Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

             ``PART G--SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE

     ``SEC. 1471. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this part:
       ``(1) Eligible activity.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `eligible activity' means an 
     activity concerning a small public water system (including 
     obtaining technical assistance) that is carried out by an 
     eligible entity for a purpose consistent with section 
     1473(c)(1) or 1474(c)(1), as appropriate.
       ``(B) Exclusion.--The term `eligible activity' does not 
     include any activity to increase the population served by a 
     small public water system, except to the extent that the 
     State under section 1473(b)(1) or the Administrator under 
     section 1474(b)(1) determines an activity to be necessary 
     to--
       ``(i) achieve compliance with a national primary drinking 
     water regulation; and
       ``(ii) provide a water supply to a population that, as of 
     the date of enactment of this part, is not served by a safe 
     public water system.
       ``(2) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means a 
     small public water system that--
       ``(A) is located in a State or an area governed by an 
     Indian Tribe; and
       ``(B)(i) if located in a State, serves a community that, 
     under affordability criteria established by the State under 
     section 1452(d)(3), is determined by the State to be--
       ``(I) a disadvantaged community; or
       ``(II) a community the State expects to become a 
     disadvantaged community as a result of carrying out an 
     eligible activity; or
       ``(ii) if located in an area governed by an Indian Tribe, 
     serves a community that is determined by the Administrator, 
     under criteria published by the Administrator under section 
     1452(d)(3) and in consultation with the Secretary, to be--
       ``(I) a disadvantaged community; or
       ``(II) a community the Administrator expects to become a 
     disadvantaged community as a result of carrying out an 
     eligible activity.
       ``(3) Eligible state.--The term `eligible State' means a 
     State that has--
       ``(A) adopted, and is implementing, an approved operator 
     certification program under section 1419; and
       ``(B) established affordability criteria under section 
     1452(d)(3) for use in identifying disadvantaged communities.
       ``(4) Program.--The term `Program' means the Small Public 
     Water System Assistance Program established under section 
     1472(a).
       ``(5) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary 
     of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of 
     the Indian Health Service.
       ``(6) Small public water system.--The term `small public 
     water system' means a public water system (including a 
     community water system and a noncommunity water system) that 
     serves a population of 10,000 or fewer.

     ``SEC. 1472. SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Establishment.--Not later than July 1, 2008, the 
     Administrator shall establish within the Environmental 
     Protection Agency a Small Public Water System Assistance 
     Program.
       ``(b) Duties.--The head of the Program shall--
       ``(1) in accordance with section 1474, establish and 
     administer a small public water system assistance program 
     for, and provide grants to, eligible entities located in 
     areas governed by Indian Tribes, for use in carrying out 
     eligible activities;
       ``(2) identify, and prepare annual prioritized lists of, 
     activities for eligible entities located in areas governed by 
     Indian Tribes that are eligible for grants under section 
     1474;
       ``(3) provide funds to States for use in establishing small 
     public water system assistance programs under section 1473 
     that award grants to eligible entities to carry out eligible 
     activities; and
       ``(4) prepare, and submit to the Administrator, the reports 
     required under subsection (d).
       ``(c) Allocation of Funds.--
       ``(1) States.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraphs (B) through (D) 
     and paragraph (2)(A), for each fiscal year, the 
     Administrator, through the head of the Program, using the 
     most recent available needs survey conducted by the 
     Administrator under section 1452(h), shall allocate the funds 
     made available to carry out the Program for the fiscal year 
     among eligible States based on the ratio that--
       ``(i) the financial need associated with treatment projects 
     for small public water systems in the State; bears to
       ``(ii) the total financial need associated with treatment 
     projects for all small public water systems in all States.
       ``(B) Additional requirements.--Any additional financial 
     needs of small public water systems associated with the cost 
     of treatment projects needed to comply with a national 
     primary drinking water regulation that is promulgated after 
     the most recent needs survey conducted under section 1452(h) 
     shall be factored into the determination of financial need 
     under clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A) for each 
     fiscal year.
       ``(C) Minimum allocation.--An allocation of funds to a 
     State for a fiscal year under subparagraph (A), taking into 
     consideration any additional financial needs described in 
     subparagraph (B), shall be in an amount that is at least 1 
     percent of the amount of funds available for that fiscal 
     year.
       ``(D) Redistribution if nonuse.--If a State does not 
     qualify for, or fails to request, funds allocated to the 
     State under subparagraph (A) in any fiscal year, the 
     Administrator shall redistribute the funds among the States 
     that--
       ``(i) request funds for that fiscal year; and
       ``(ii) are eligible to receive the funds under subparagraph 
     (A) for that fiscal year.
       ``(2) Indian tribes.--
       ``(A) In general.--For each fiscal year, in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B), 3 percent of the total amount of funds made 
     available to carry out the Program for the fiscal year shall 
     be allocated by the Administrator to provide grants to 
     eligible entities that are located in areas governed by 
     Indian Tribes

[[Page S10625]]

     through the program established under section 1474(a).
       ``(B) Use of funds.--
       ``(i) In general.--For each fiscal year, the Administrator 
     shall award, on a competitive basis, not less than 1.5 
     percent of the funds allocated under subparagraph (A) to 
     nonprofit technical assistance organizations, to be used for 
     the purposes of--

       ``(I) assisting the Administrator in preparing the list 
     required under section 1474(b) (including assisting the 
     Administrator in identifying the highest priority eligible 
     activities for eligible entities located in areas governed by 
     Indian Tribes for which a grant under section 1474 may be 
     used);
       ``(II) assisting eligible entities located in areas 
     governed by Indian Tribes in--

       ``(aa) assessing needs relating to eligible activities; and
       ``(bb) identifying available sources of funding to meet the 
     cost-sharing requirement of section 1474(f)(1); and

       ``(III) assisting eligible entities located in areas 
     governed by Indian Tribes that receive funding under section 
     1474 in--

       ``(aa) planning, implementing, and maintaining eligible 
     activities that are funded under that section; and
       ``(bb) preparing reports required under section 1474(h).
       ``(ii) Consultation.--Each nonprofit technical assistance 
     organization that receives funds under clause (i) shall 
     consult with the Administrator, through the head of the 
     program, before carrying out any activity for the purposes 
     described in subclauses (II)(aa) and (III)(aa) of that 
     clause.
       ``(iii) No funds for lobbying expenses.--None of the funds 
     made available to a nonprofit technical assistance 
     organization under clause (i) shall be used to pay lobbying 
     expenses.
       ``(3) Program.--For each fiscal year, the Administrator may 
     use not more than 0.1 percent of the funds made available to 
     carry out the Program to pay reasonable costs incurred in the 
     administration of the Program.
       ``(d) Reports.--Not later than January 1, 2009, and 
     annually thereafter through January 1, 2014, the 
     Administrator shall--
       ``(1) submit, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of 
     the House of Representatives and the Committee on Environment 
     and Public Works of the Senate, a report that, for the 
     preceding fiscal year--
       ``(A) lists the eligible activities for eligible entities, 
     as prepared under sections 1473(b)(1) and 1474(b)(1), located 
     in areas governed by Indian Tribes and in each State 
     receiving funds under this part;
       ``(B) identifies the number of grants awarded by each 
     State, and by the Administrator to eligible entities located 
     in areas governed by Indian Tribes, under this part;
       ``(C) identifies each eligible entity that received a grant 
     to carry out an eligible activity;
       ``(D) identifies the amount of each grant provided to an 
     eligible entity to carry out an eligible activity; and
       ``(E) describes each eligible activity funded by such a 
     grant (including the status of the eligible activity); and
       ``(2) make the report under paragraph (1) available to the 
     public.

     ``SEC. 1473. STATE SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE 
                   PROGRAMS.

       ``(a) In General.--To be eligible to receive funding under 
     this part, a State shall--
       ``(1) be an eligible State;
       ``(2) not later than July 1, 2008 (if funding is sought for 
     fiscal year 2008) or not later than September 30 of any of 
     fiscal years 2008 through 2014 (if funding is sought for the 
     following fiscal year), establish a small public water system 
     assistance program--
       ``(A) under which the requirements of subsection (b), 
     oversight, and related activities (other than financial 
     administration) with respect to the program are 
     administered--
       ``(i) in the case of a State that is exercising primary 
     enforcement responsibility for public water systems, by the 
     State agency having primary responsibility for administration 
     of the State program under section 1413; and
       ``(ii) in the case of a State that is not exercising 
     primary enforcement authority for public water systems, by a 
     State agency selected by the Governor of the State; and
       ``(B) that meets the requirements of this section; and
       ``(3) for each fiscal year for which funding is sought 
     under this section--
       ``(A) in preparing an intended use plan under section 
     1452(b), after providing for public review and comment, 
     prepare an annual list of eligible activities for eligible 
     entities in the State in accordance with subsection (b); and
       ``(B) prepare and submit to the Administrator a request for 
     the funding, by such date and in such form as the 
     Administrator shall prescribe.
       ``(b) Program Priority Requirement.--
       ``(1) List of eligible activities.--A small public water 
     system assistance program established under subsection (a) 
     shall, for each fiscal year for which funding is sought, 
     identify, and, using the priority criteria described in 
     paragraph (2) and considering the additional criteria 
     described in paragraph (3), list in descending order of 
     priority, eligible activities for eligible entities in the 
     State for which funds provided from a grant under this part 
     may be used.
       ``(2) Priority criteria.--In preparing the list under 
     paragraph (1), a small public water system assistance program 
     shall give priority for the use of grants to eligible 
     activities that--
       ``(A) address the most serious risk to human health;
       ``(B) are necessary to ensure compliance with national 
     primary water regulations applicable to eligible entities 
     under section 1412; and
       ``(C) assist systems most in need, as calculated on the 
     basis of median household income, under affordability 
     criteria established by the State under section 1452(d)(3).
       ``(3) Additional criteria.--In addition to the priority 
     criteria described in paragraph (2), a small public water 
     system assistance program shall, in preparing a list under 
     paragraph (1), consider giving additional priority to any 
     listed eligible activities that are to be carried out by 
     communities that form management cooperatives (including 
     management cooperatives between systems that do not have 
     connections).
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--Using any funds received by a State 
     under this section for a fiscal year, in accordance with the 
     list prepared under subsection (b), a small public water 
     system assistance program established by the State under 
     subsection (a)--
       ``(1) shall provide to an eligible entity, on a cost-shared 
     basis, a grant to be used for an eligible activity (including 
     source water protection) the purpose of which is compliance 
     with national primary drinking water regulations applicable 
     to the eligible entity under section 1412;
       ``(2) shall--
       ``(A) award, on a competitive basis, not less than 1.5 
     percent of the funds to nonprofit technical assistance 
     organizations to be used for the purposes of--
       ``(i) assisting the State in preparing the list required 
     under subsection (b) (including assisting the State in 
     identifying the highest priority eligible activities for 
     eligible entities located in the State for which a grant 
     under this section may be used); and
       ``(ii) assisting eligible entities in--

       ``(I) assessing needs relating to eligible activities;
       ``(II) identifying available sources of funding to meet the 
     cost-sharing requirement of subsection (f); and
       ``(III) planning, implementing, and maintaining any 
     eligible activities of the eligible entities that receive 
     funding under this section;

       ``(B) require each nonprofit technical assistance 
     organization that receives funds under subparagraph (A) to 
     consult with the State, through the head of the small public 
     water assistance program, before carrying out any activity 
     for the purposes described in subclauses (I) and (III) of 
     subparagraph (A)(ii); and
       ``(C) require that none of the funds made available to a 
     nonprofit technical assistance organization under 
     subparagraph (A) be used to pay lobbying expenses; and
       ``(3) may use not to exceed 1 percent of the funds 
     allocated to the State to pay reasonable costs incurred in 
     the administration of the small public water system 
     assistance program.
       ``(d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--For each fiscal year, 
     not more than 5 percent of the funds received by an eligible 
     entity under this section may be used to obtain technical 
     assistance in planning, implementing, and maintaining 
     eligible activities that are funded under this section.
       ``(e) Limitation on Receipt of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     grant under this section shall not be provided to an eligible 
     entity that, as determined by the State--
       ``(A) does not have the technical, managerial, and 
     financial capability to ensure compliance with national 
     primary drinking water regulations applicable to the eligible 
     entity under section 1412; or
       ``(B) is in significant noncompliance with any applicable 
     national primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(2) Exception for receipt of grant.--An eligible entity 
     described in paragraph (1) may receive a grant under this 
     section only--
       ``(A) if the State determines that use of the grant will 
     ensure compliance with national primary drinking water 
     regulations applicable to the eligible entity under section 
     1412;
       ``(B)(i) to restructure or consolidate the facility to 
     achieve compliance with applicable national primary drinking 
     water regulations; or
       ``(ii) in a case in which restructuring or consolidation of 
     the facility is not practicable, if the State determines 
     that--
       ``(I) the eligible entity has made a good faith effort to 
     achieve compliance with applicable national primary drinking 
     water regulations; and
       ``(II) the eligible entity is adhering to an enforceable 
     schedule for achieving those regulations; and
       ``(C) in a case in which paragraph (1)(A) applies to an 
     eligible entity, and the eligible entity agrees to undertake 
     feasible and appropriate changes in operations (including 
     changes in ownership, management, accounting, rates, 
     maintenance, consolidation, provision of an alternative water 
     supply, or other procedures), if the State determines that 
     the measures are necessary to ensure that the eligible entity 
     has the technical, managerial, and financial capability to 
     comply with applicable national primary drinking water 
     regulations over the long term.
       ``(3) Review.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section to an eligible entity that

[[Page S10626]]

     is in significant noncompliance with any national primary 
     drinking water regulation applicable to the eligible entity 
     under section 1412, the State shall conduct a review to 
     determine whether paragraph (1)(A) applies to the entity.
       ``(f) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Limit.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     share of the total cost of an eligible activity funded by a 
     grant under this section shall not exceed 80 percent.
       ``(B) Use of other federal funds.--To pay the portion of an 
     eligible activity that may not be funded by a grant under 
     this section, an eligible entity may use Federal financial 
     assistance other than assistance received under this section.
       ``(2) Waiver of cost-sharing requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), a State may 
     waive the requirement of an eligible entity to pay all or a 
     portion of the share of an eligible activity that may not be 
     funded by a grant under this section, based on a 
     determination by the State that the eligible entity is unable 
     to pay any or all of the share.
       ``(B) Limitation.--For each fiscal year in which a State 
     receives funding under this section, the total amount of 
     cost-share waivers provided by the State under subparagraph 
     (A) shall not exceed 30 percent of the amount of funding 
     received by the State for the fiscal year under section 
     1472(c)(1).
       ``(g) Unobligated Funds.--Any funds not obligated by the 
     State for a purpose consistent with subsection (c) within 1 
     year after the date of the allocation of the funds by the 
     Administrator under section 1472(c) shall be returned to the 
     Administrator for reallocation under that section.
       ``(h) Reports.--Not later than November 1 following each 
     fiscal year in which a State receives funding under this 
     section, the State shall--
       ``(1) submit to the Administrator a report that, for the 
     preceding fiscal year--
       ``(A) lists the eligible activities for eligible entities, 
     as prepared under subsection (b);
       ``(B) identifies the number of grants awarded by the State 
     small public water system assistance program to eligible 
     entities;
       ``(C) identifies each eligible entity that received a grant 
     to carry out an eligible activity;
       ``(D) identifies the amount of each grant provided to an 
     eligible entity to carry out an eligible activity; and
       ``(E) describes each eligible activity funded by such 
     grants (including the status of the eligible activity); and
       ``(2) make the report under paragraph (1) available to the 
     public.

     ``SEC. 1474. SMALL PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR 
                   INDIAN TRIBES.

       ``(a) Establishment.--Not later than July 1, 2008, the 
     Administrator shall establish a small public water system 
     assistance program for Indian Tribes, through which eligible 
     entities located in areas governed by the Indian Tribe may 
     receive grants for eligible activities under this part.
       ``(b) Program Priority Requirement.--
       ``(1) List of eligible activities.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator, acting through the 
     head of the small public water system assistance program for 
     Indian Tribes, in consultation with the Secretary, shall, for 
     each fiscal year, identify, and, using the priority criteria 
     described in paragraph (2) and considering the additional 
     criteria described in paragraph (3), list in descending order 
     of priority, eligible activities for eligible entities 
     located in areas governed by Indian Tribes for which funds 
     provided from a grant under this part may be used.
       ``(B) Coordination.--
       ``(i) In general.--To the maximum extent practicable, the 
     Administrator shall ensure that the list under subparagraph 
     (A) is coordinated with any needs assessment conducted under 
     section 1452(i)(4).
       ``(ii) Additional consideration.--Any additional financial 
     needs of small public water systems located in areas governed 
     by Indian Tribes that are associated with the cost of 
     complying with a national primary drinking water regulation 
     that is promulgated after the most recent needs survey 
     conducted under section 1452(i)(4) shall be factored into the 
     determination of financial need for, and prioritization of, 
     eligible activities under this section.
       ``(2) Priority criteria.--In preparing the list under 
     paragraph (1), the Administrator shall give priority for the 
     use of grants to eligible activities that--
       ``(A) address the most serious risk to human health;
       ``(B) are necessary to ensure compliance with national 
     primary water regulations applicable to eligible entities 
     under section 1412; and
       ``(C) assist systems most in need, as calculated on the 
     basis of median household income, under affordability 
     criteria published by the Administrator under section 
     1452(d)(3).
       ``(3) Additional criteria.--In addition to the priority 
     criteria described in paragraph (2), the Administrator shall, 
     in preparing a list under paragraph (1), consider giving 
     additional priority to any listed eligible activities that 
     are to be carried out by communities that form management 
     cooperatives (including management cooperatives between 
     systems that do not have connections).
       ``(c) Use of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Using funds allocated under section 
     1472(c)(2)(A), the small public water system assistance 
     program established under subsection (a) shall provide to an 
     eligible entity located in an area governed by an Indian 
     Tribe, on a cost-shared basis, a grant to be used for an 
     eligible activity (including source water protection) the 
     purpose of which is compliance with national primary drinking 
     water regulations applicable to the eligible entity under 
     section 1412.
       ``(2) Allocation of grant funding.--For each fiscal year, 
     taking into consideration the funding allocation under 
     section 1472(c)(2)(A) for the fiscal year, the head of the 
     small public water assistance program established under 
     subsection (a), in consultation with the Secretary, shall 
     provide grants under paragraph (1) for the maximum number of 
     eligible activities for which the funding allocation makes 
     assistance available, based on the priority assigned by the 
     Administrator to eligible activities under subsection (b).
       ``(d) Limitation on Use of Funds.--For each fiscal year, 
     not more than 5 percent of the funds received by an eligible 
     entity under this section may be used to obtain technical 
     assistance in planning, implementing, and maintaining 
     eligible activities that are funded under this section.
       ``(e) Limitation on Receipt of Funds.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), a 
     grant under this section shall not be provided to an eligible 
     entity that, as determined by the Administrator--
       ``(A) does not have the technical, managerial, and 
     financial capability to ensure compliance with national 
     primary drinking water regulations applicable to the eligible 
     entity under section 1412; or
       ``(B) is in significant noncompliance with any applicable 
     national primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(2) Exception for receipt of grant.--An eligible entity 
     described in paragraph (1) may receive a grant under this 
     section only--
       ``(A) if the Administrator determines that use of the grant 
     will ensure compliance with national primary drinking water 
     regulations applicable to the eligible entity under section 
     1412;
       ``(B)(i) to restructure or consolidate the facility to 
     achieve compliance with applicable national primary drinking 
     water regulations; or
       ``(ii) in a case in which restructuring or consolidation of 
     the facility is not practicable, if the Administrator 
     determines that--
       ``(I) the eligible entity has made a good faith effort to 
     achieve compliance with applicable national primary drinking 
     water regulations; and
       ``(II) the eligible entity is adhering to an enforceable 
     schedule for achieving those regulations; and
       ``(C) in a case in which paragraph (1)(A) applies to an 
     eligible entity, and the eligible entity agrees to undertake 
     feasible and appropriate changes in operations (including 
     changes in ownership, management, accounting, rates, 
     maintenance, consolidation, provision of an alternative water 
     supply, or other procedures), if the Administrator determines 
     that the measures are necessary to ensure that the eligible 
     entity has the technical, managerial, and financial 
     capability to comply with applicable national primary 
     drinking water regulations over the long term.
       ``(3) Review.--Before providing assistance under this 
     section to an eligible entity that is in significant 
     noncompliance with any national primary drinking water 
     regulation applicable to the eligible entity under section 
     1412, the Administrator shall conduct a review to determine 
     whether paragraph (1)(A) applies to the entity.
       ``(f) Cost Sharing.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Limit.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     share of the total cost of an eligible activity funded by a 
     grant under this section shall not exceed 80 percent.
       ``(B) Use of other federal funds.--To pay the portion of an 
     eligible activity that may not be funded by a grant under 
     this section, an eligible entity may use Federal financial 
     assistance other than assistance received under this section.
       ``(2) Waiver of cost-sharing requirement.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Administrator may waive the 
     requirement of an eligible entity to pay all or a portion of 
     the share of eligible activity that may not be funded by a 
     grant under this section based on a determination by the 
     Administrator that the eligible entity is unable to pay any 
     or all of the share.
       ``(B) Limitation.--For each fiscal year, the total amount 
     of cost-share waivers provided by the Administrator under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not exceed 30 percent of the amount of 
     funding allocated to eligible entities located in areas 
     governed by Indian Tribes for the fiscal year under section 
     1472(c)(2)(A).
       ``(g) Unobligated Funds.--Any funds not obligated by the 
     small public water system assistance program established 
     under subsection (a) for a purpose consistent with section 
     1472(c)(2)(B) and subsection (c) within 1 year after the date 
     of allocation of the funds by the Administrator under section 
     1472(c)(2)(A) shall be returned to the Administrator for 
     reallocation under that section.
       ``(h) Reports.--Not later than November 1 following each 
     fiscal year in which an Indian Tribe receives funding under 
     this section,

[[Page S10627]]

     the Indian Tribe shall submit to the Administrator a report 
     that, for the preceding fiscal year--
       ``(1) identifies the number of grants awarded to eligible 
     entities located in areas governed by the Indian Tribe;
       ``(2) identifies each such eligible entity that received a 
     grant to carry out an eligible activity;
       ``(3) identifies the amount of each grant provided to such 
     an eligible entity to carry out an eligible activity; and
       ``(4) describes each eligible activity funded by such 
     grants (including the status of the eligible activity).

     ``SEC. 1475. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
     part $750,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2008 through 
     2014.''.

                          ____________________