Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10791-S10822]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

By Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Thune, and Mr.
Johnson):
S. 1934. A bill to extend the existing provisions regarding the
eligibility for essential air service subsidies through fiscal year
2012, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of
the bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:

[[Page S10792]]

S. 1934

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

SECTION 1. CONTINUATION OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE AT CERTAIN
LOCATIONS.

(a) In General.--Section 409(d) of the Vision 100--Century
of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108-176; 49
U.S.C. 41731 note) is amended by striking ``September 30,
2007'' and inserting ``September 30, 2012''.
(b) Requirement for Continuation of Essential Air Service
by Certain Air Carriers for 90 Days After Termination of
Contract.--Any air carrier that provides essential air
service to a place described in section 409(a) of the Vision
100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Public Law 108-
176; 49 U.S.C. 41731 note) and has a contract for the
provision of such essential air service that expires on
September 30, 2007, shall continue to provide such essential
air service to such place until at least the earlier of--
(1) January 1, 2008; or
(2) the date on which the Secretary of Transportation
identifies a new air carrier to provide such essential air
service.
(c) Air Carrier Defined.--In this section, the term ``air
carrier'' has the meaning provided such term in section 40102
of title 49, United States Code.
______

By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself and Mr. Domenici);
S. 1940. A bill to reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Management
Program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
reauthorizing the Rio Puerco Watershed Management Program, which became
law in 1996. In the 10 years since it was formalized by Congress, the
Rio Puerco Management Committee has helped facilitate a collaborative
approach for the restoration of the highly degraded Rio Puerco
Watershed, which at 7,000 square miles is the largest tributary to the
Rio Grande in terms of area and sediment.
The Rio Puerco was once known as New Mexico's breadbasket, with water
supply and soil tilth to support that reputation. Over time, extensive
ecological changes have occurred in the Rio Puerco Watershed, some of
which have resulted in damage to the watershed that has seriously
affected the economic and cultural well-being of its inhabitants. This
has resulted in the loss of existing communities that were based on the
land and were self-sustaining. According to the Bureau of Land
Management, while the Rio Puerco contributes less than 10 percent of
the total water to the Rio Grande, it represents the primary source of
sedimentation entering the Upper Rio Grande with far reaching effects
throughout the lower portions of the river. For example, the Rio Puerco
contributes the majority of the silt entering Elephant Butte Reservoir
about 65 miles downstream of its confluence with the Rio Grande.
The Rio Puerco Management Committee has become one of the most
effective collaborative land management efforts in the Southwest,
particularly given the challenges posed by the multi-jurisdictional
nature of the watershed. It has successfully developed and implemented
proposals for watershed rehabilitation on a collaborative basis with
participation from private stakeholders, various Federal agencies,
Native American Indian tribes, State agencies, and local governments.
For example, the committee took on the bold proposal of returning the
Rio Puerco to its original streambed, originally altered to accommodate
the construction of State Highway 44, now U.S. Highway 550, in the late
1960s. According to the BLM, the channel became a primary contributor
of erosion and sediment in the river main stem, and even began
advancing toward U.S. 550, threatening the highways stability. This
large-scale project is one of only three in the entire country that has
attempted to reintroduce a channelized river into its original meander.
I am proud to say that the committee's holistic approach has also
facilitated low-tech but time-intensive restoration projects and
community outreach initiatives which have actively engaged community
members and the Youth Conservation Corps. This has helped develop a
sense of ownership and community responsibility for the restoration of
the Rio Puerco while also providing our State's youth valuable resource
management skills and teaching them how to be responsible stewards of
the land now and in the future.
I am pleased Senator Domenici is a cosponsor of this reauthorization
bill, and I thank him for always being a strong advocate for this
program. The Rio Puerco Management Committee has demonstrated the
achievements that can be made by working cooperatively to advance the
restoration of and maintenance of this watershed. It is also clear that
more work needs to be done, and it is my sincere hope that the Congress
and the administration will continue to work in a similar cooperative
manner to ensure adequate funding is provided for this important
program. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the need for targeted restoration work
in the Rio Puerco watershed came to my attention during the early
1990s. Congress began funding local efforts to improve the Rio Puerco
area in 1992, and the Rio Puerco Management Program was formally
authorized by the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of
1996.
The Rio Puerco Basin is the largest tributary to the Middle Rio
Grande Basin. The watershed encompasses nearly 5 million acres and acts
as drainage for portions of 7 counties in my home State of New Mexico.
The Rio Puerco watershed is a major source of silt in Elephant Butte
Reservoir. In fact, the Department of Interior's U.S. Geological Survey
has identified the Rio Puerco as having one of the highest sediment
concentrations. The objective of the collaborative program is to
curtail sedimentation from washing down the Rio Puerco to the Rio
Grande and Elephant Butte. As intended, this program has helped to
facilitate cooperation between Federal, State, and local agencies along
with local landowners to improve the health of the Rio Puerco watershed
by working together to implement projects that help control erosion and
reduce the flow of sediment into the Rio Grande.
I believe the program has accomplished much during its tenure, and I
fully support its objectives. I am pleased to join my colleague from
New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, as a cosponsor of this bill, and I look
forward to working with him to see that this important program is
reauthorized.
______

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mrs. Clinton, and Ms.
Mikulski):
S. 1942. A bill to amend part D of title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 to provide grants for the renovation of
schools; to the Committee on Health, Education, labor, and Pensions.

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Public
School Repair and Renovation Act. I offer this legislation to meet the
urgent need for support to repair crumbling schools in disadvantaged
and rural school districts.
We all agree that school infrastructure requires constant
maintenance. Unfortunately, far too many schools have been forced to
neglect ongoing issues, most likely due to lack of funds, which can
lead to health and safety problems for students, educators and staff.
The most recent infrastructure report card issued by the American
Society of Civil Engineers gives public schools a ``D'' grade. Now, I
don't know many parents who would find ``D'' grades acceptable for
their children. So why on earth would we stand by while the state of
the buildings in which our children learn are assigned such a grade?
Despite the declining condition of many public schools, Federal grant
funding is generally not available to leverage local spending. In
fiscal year 2001, the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Subcommittee which I then chaired, I was able
to secure $1.2 billion for school repair and renovation. I continue to
hear nothing but positive feedback from educators across the country
about that funding.
But that one-time investment amounted to nothing more than a drop in
the bucket compared to the estimated national need. In 1995, the
General Accounting Office reported that the nation's K-12 schools
needed some $112 billion in repairs and upgrades. A more recent study
by the National Education Association put the estimate as high as $322
billion.
I have been heartened by the recent boom in local and State spending
on

[[Page S10793]]

school facilities. However, the distribution of these recent
investments has been overwhelmingly slanted to the most affluent
communities which are better able to fund new investments without
outside assistance. A 2006 study released by the Building Educational
Success Together, BEST, coalition found that the quality of your
child's school is dependent upon his or her racial or ethnic background
and whether they live in a rich or poor neighborhood.
Local spending on school facilities in affluent communities is almost
twice as high as in our most disadvantaged communities, as measured on
a per-pupil basis. The report also found that school districts with
predominantly caucasian enrollment benefited from about $2000 more per
student in school repair and construction spending than their peers
living in school districts with predominantly minority enrollment.
The Public School Repair and Renovation Act addresses that inequity
by targeting school renovation grants to those communities that have
struggled to fund needed repairs. The bill builds on the model States
found successful in the fiscal year 2001 program. States would receive
funding based on their most recent Title I allocation to initiate a
competitive grant program targeted to poor and rural school districts.
States have the discretion to require matching funds from the local
district bringing the potential funding to much more than the $1.6
billion Federal investment.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Clinton, and
Mikulski for signing on to this bill. In addition, I am pleased to
report this legislation has the support of a diverse group of national
education organizations representing teachers, school boards, school
administrators, and principals.
The Public School Repair and Renovation Act takes a much needed step
forward in fixing the inequity in public school facilities. Something
is seriously wrong when children go to modern, gleaming movie theaters,
shopping malls, and sports arenas, but attend public schools with
crumbling walls and leaking roofs. This sends exactly the wrong message
to children about the importance of education.
I hope that my colleagues will support the Public School Repair and
Renovation Act.
______

By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Menendez, Mr.
Cornyn, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Lott, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Schumer, Mrs.
Clinton, Mr. Casey, Ms. Collins, Mr. Graham, Mr. Biden, Mr.
Stevens, and Mrs. Feinstein):
S. 1944. A bill to provide justice for victims of state-sponsored
terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Justice for
Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act with my colleagues, Senators
Specter, Menendez, Cornyn, Coleman, Lott, Lieberman, Schumer, Clinton,
Casey, Collins, Graham, Biden, Stevens, and Feinstein.
I am proud to introduce this legislation on behalf of the many
Americans who have suffered at the hands of State sponsors of
terrorism. This important legislation will allow victims of state
sponsored terrorism to have their day in court. It will do so by
enabling these individuals to both sue for liability and seek financial
compensation from the states, such as Iran, which committed these
murderous acts, thereby starving them of the funds that they use to
strike at innocent victims.
In 1983, the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, was
bombed by the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah, killing 241
servicemen and wounding 100 others. In 2003, the U.S. District Court in
Washington, DC, found the Republic of Iran, which directly supports
Hezbollah, guilty of masterminding that bombing. The victims and their
families have the right to sue their tormentors and have judgments
against Iran, yet the judgments are not being enforced.
In 1996, the President signed into law legislation that I wrote to
amend the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to give private American
citizens the right to hold U.S. Department of State-designated state
sponsors of terrorism liable in U.S. courts. This legislation, also
known as the Flatow amendment, needs to be clarified and updated. The
bill I am introducing today will bring clarity to this law on behalf of
victims of terrorism and reaffirm their right to sue and collect
damages from state sponsors of terrorism.
There are several reasons why the law needs to be improved. First,
the courts decided in 2004 in Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of
Iran that, contrary to the intent of the Flatow amendment, there would
be no Federal private right of action against foreign governments. The
ruling stated that there could only be legal action against individual
officials and employees of that government. Second, current law permits
judgment holders to only seize assets over which a terrorist state has
day-to-day managerial control, thereby allowing terrorist states to
hide their assets from the victims who have successful judgments
against them. Third, state sponsors of terrorism, such as Libya, which
is still responsible for terrorist acts it committed in the past, have
consistently abused the appeals process to delay litigation
proceedings.
My new legislation will address these issues and improve the ability
of victims to hold state sponsors of terrorism accountable. First, it
will update the Flatow amendment to improve its enforcement by
reaffirming the right of private citizens to sue state sponsors of
terrorism. Second, it will allow for the seizure of hidden commercial
assets belonging to the terrorist state so that the victims of
terrorism can be justly compensated. Third, it will limit the number of
appeals that the terrorist state can pursue in U.S. courts. In
addition, my legislation will provide foreign nationals working for the
U.S. Government, if they are victims of a terrorist attack during their
official duties, to be covered by these same provisions.
While nothing can bring back innocent lives lost to terrorism, the
state sponsors of these horrific acts must be made to pay for their
crimes. We are united in our belief that state-sponsored terrorism is
wrong and that the perpetrators of terrorism must be brought to
justice. This legislation will also strengthen our national security by
combating the desire and ability of foreign nations to both finance and
support terrorism. Most importantly, it will empower those innocent
victims who have suffered from terrorism to seek justice through the
rule of American law.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support justice
for victims of state sponsored terrorism by supporting this important
bill. 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. 1944

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 ``Justice for Victims of State
Sponsored Terrorism Act''.

SEC. 2. TERRORISM EXCEPTION TO IMMUNITY.

(a) In General.--Chapter 97 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 1605 the
following:

``Sec. 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional
immunity of a foreign state

``(a) In General.--
``(1) No immunity.--A foreign state shall not be immune
from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of
the States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter
in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for
personal injury or death that was caused by an act of
torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage
taking, or the provision of material support or resources (as
defined in section 2339A of title 18) for such an act if such
act or provision of material support is engaged in by an
official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while
acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or
agency.
``(2) Claim heard.--The court shall hear a claim under this
section if--
``(A) the foreign state was designated as a state sponsor
of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export Administration
Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405 (j)) or section 620A of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371) at the time
the act occurred, unless later designated as a result of such
act;
``(B) the claimant or the victim was--
``(i) a national of the United States (as that term is
defined in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(22));
``(ii) a member of the Armed Forces of the United States
(as that term is defined in section 976 of title 10); or

[[Page S10794]]

``(iii) otherwise an employee of the government of the
United States or one of its contractors acting within the
scope of their employment when the act upon which the claim
is based occurred; or
``(C) where the act occurred in the foreign state against
which the claim has been brought, the claimant has afforded
the foreign state a reasonable opportunity to arbitrate the
claim in accordance with the accepted international rules of
arbitration.
``(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) the terms `torture' and `extrajudicial killing' have
the meaning given those terms in section 3 of the Torture
Victim Protection Act of 1991 (28 U.S.C. 1350 note);
``(2) the term `hostage taking' has the meaning given that
term in Article 1 of the International Convention Against the
Taking of Hostages; and
``(3) the term `aircraft sabotage' has the meaning given
that term in Article 1 of the Convention for the Suppression
of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Civil Aviation.
``(c) Time Limit.--An action may be brought under this
section if the action is commenced not later than the latter
of--
``(1) 10 years after April 24, 1996; or
``(2) 10 years from the date on which the cause of action
arose.
``(d) Private Right of Action.--A private cause of action
may be brought against a foreign state designated under
section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50
U.S.C. 2405(j)), and any official, employee, or agent of said
foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her
office, employment, or agency which shall be liable to a
national of the United States (as that term is defined in
section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8
U.S.C. 1101(a)(22)), a member of the Armed Forces of the
United States (as that term is defined in section 976 of
title 10), or an employee of the government of the United
States or one of its contractors acting within the scope of
their employment or the legal representative of such a person
for personal injury or death caused by acts of that foreign
state or its official, employee, or agent for which the
courts of the United States may maintain jurisdiction under
this section for money damages which may include economic
damages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages
if the acts were among those described in this section. A
foreign state shall be vicariously liable for the actions of
its officials, employees, or agents.
``(e) Additional Damages.--After an action has been brought
under subsection (d), actions may also be brought for
reasonably foreseeable property loss, whether insured or
uninsured, third party liability, and life and property
insurance policy loss claims.
``(f) Special Masters.--
``(1) In general.--The Courts of the United States may from
time to time appoint special masters to hear damage claims
brought under this section.
``(2) Transfer of funds.--The Attorney General shall
transfer, from funds available for the program under sections
1404C of the Victims Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603c) to
the Administrator of the United States District Court in
which any case is pending which has been brought pursuant to
section 1605(a)(7) such funds as may be required to carry out
the Orders of that United States District Court appointing
Special Masters in any case under this section. Any amount
paid in compensation to any such Special Master shall
constitute an item of court costs.
``(g) Appeal.--In an action brought under this section,
appeals from orders not conclusively ending the litigation
may only be taken pursuant to section 1292(b) of this title.
``(h) Property Disposition.--
``(1) In general.--In every action filed in a United States
district court in which jurisdiction is alleged under this
section, the filing of a notice of pending action pursuant to
this section, to which is attached a copy of the complaint
filed in the action, shall have the effect of establishing a
lien of lis pendens upon any real property or tangible
personal property located within that judicial district that
is titled in the name of any defendant, or titled in the name
of any entity controlled by any such defendant if such notice
contains a statement listing those controlled entities.
``(2) Notice.--A notice of pending action pursuant to this
section shall be filed by the clerk of the district court in
the same manner as any pending action and shall be indexed by
listing as defendants all named defendants and all entities
listed as controlled by any defendant.
``(3) Enforceability.--Liens established by reason of this
subsection shall be enforceable as provided in chapter 111 of
this title.''.
(b) Amendment to Chapter Analysis.--The chapter analysis
for chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by
inserting after the item for section 1605 the following:

``1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a
foreign state.''.

SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

(a) Property.--Section 1610 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(g) Property in Certain Actions.--
``(1) In general.--The property of a foreign state, or
agency or instrumentality of a foreign state, against which a
judgment is entered under this section, including property
that is a separate juridical entity, is subject to execution
upon that judgment as provided in this section, regardless
of--
``(A) the level of economic control over the property by
the government of the foreign state;
``(B) whether the profits of the property go to that
government;
``(C) the degree to which officials of that government
manage the property or otherwise control its daily affairs;
``(D) whether that government is the sole beneficiary in
interest of the property; or
``(E) whether establishing the property as a separate
entity would entitle the foreign state to benefits in United
States courts while avoiding its obligations.
``(2) United states sovereign immunity inapplicable.--Any
property of a foreign state, or agency or instrumentality of
a foreign state, to which paragraph (1) applies shall not be
immune from execution upon a judgment entered under this
section because the property is regulated by the United
States Government by reason of action taken against that
foreign state under the Trading With the Enemy Act or the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act.''.
(b) Victims of Crime Act.--Section 1404C(a)(3) of the
Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 10603c(a)(3)) is
amended by striking ``December 21, 1988, with respect to
which an investigation or'' and inserting ``October 23, 1983,
with respect to which an investigation or civil or
criminal''.
(c) General Exception.--Section 1605 of title 28, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (5)(B), by inserting ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (6)(D), by striking ``; or'' and inserting
a period; and
(C) by striking paragraph (7); and
(2) by striking subsections (e) and (f).

SEC. 4. APPLICATION TO PENDING CASES.

(a) In General.--The amendments made by this Act shall
apply to any claim arising under section 1605A or 1605(g) of
title 28, United States Code, as added by this Act.
(b) Prior Actions.--Any judgment or action brought under
section 1605(a)(7) of title 28, United States Code, or
section 101(c) of Public Law 104-208 after the effective date
of such provisions relying on either of these provisions as
creating a cause of action, which has been adversely affected
on the grounds that either or both of these provisions fail
to create a cause of action opposable against the state, and
which is still before the courts in any form, including
appeal or motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b),
shall, on motion made to the Federal District Court where the
judgment or action was initially entered, be given effect as
if it had originally been filed pursuant to section 1605A(d)
of title 28, United States Code. The defenses of res
judicata, collateral estoppel and limitation period are
waived in any re-filed action described in this paragraph and
based on the such claim. Any such motion or re-filing must be
made not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act.
______

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Brown)
S. 1945. A bill to provide a Federal income tax credit for Patriot
employers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, when companies make headlines today it is
often for all the wrong reasons: fraud, tax avoidance, profiteering,
etc. Yet many of the companies that are currently providing jobs across
America are conscientious corporate citizens that strive to treat their
workers fairly even as they seek to create good products that consumers
want and to maximize profits for their shareholders. I believe that we
should reward such companies for providing good jobs to American
workers, and create incentives that encourage more companies to do
likewise. The Patriot Employers bill does just that.
This legislation, which I am introducing today along with Senators
Obama and Brown, would provide a tax credit to reward the companies
that treat American workers best. Companies that provide American jobs,
pay decent wages; provide good benefits, and support their employees
when they are called to active duty should enjoy more favorable tax
treatment than companies that are unwilling to make the same commitment
to American workers. The Patriot Employers tax credit would put the tax
code on the side of those deserving companies by acknowledging their
commitments.
The Patriot Employers legislation would provide a tax credit equal to
1 percent of taxable income to employers that meet the following
criteria:
First, invest in American jobs, by maintaining or increasing the
number of full-time workers in America relative to the number of full-
time workers outside of America, by maintaining their corporate
headquarters in America if the company has ever been headquartered in
America, and by maintaining neutrality in union organizing drives.

[[Page S10795]]

Second, pay decent wages, by paying each worker an hourly wage that
would ensure that a full-time worker would earn enough to keep a family
of three out of poverty, at least $7.80 per hour.
Third, prepare workers for retirement, either by providing a defined
benefit plan or by providing a defined contribution plan that fully
matches at least 5 percent of worker contributions for every employee.
Fourth, provide health insurance, by paying at least 60 percent of
each worker's health care premiums.
Fifth, support our troops, by paying the difference between the
regular salary and the military salary of all National Guard and
Reserve employees who are called for active duty, and also by
continuing their health insurance coverage.
In recognition of the different business circumstances that small
employers face, companies with fewer than 50 employees could achieve
Patriot Employer status by fulfilling a smaller number of these
criteria.
There is more to the story of corporate American than the widely-
publicized wrong-doing. Patriot Employers should be publicly recognized
for doing right by their workers even while they do well for their
customers and shareholders. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Obama,
Senator Brown, and me in supporting this effort. Our best companies,
and our American workers, deserve nothing less.
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. 1945

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 ``Patriot Employers Act''.

SEC. 2. REDUCED TAXES FOR PATRIOT EMPLOYERS.

(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 45O. REDUCTION IN TAX OF PATRIOT EMPLOYERS.

``(a) In General.--In the case of any taxable year with
respect to which a taxpayer is certified by the Secretary as
a Patriot employer, the Patriot employer credit determined
under this section for purposes of section 38 shall be equal
to 1 percent of the taxable income of the taxpayer which is
properly allocable to all trades or businesses with respect
to which the taxpayer is certified as a Patriot employer for
the taxable year.
``(b) Patriot Employer.--For purposes of subsection (a),
the term `Patriot employer' means, with respect to any
taxable year, any taxpayer which--
``(1) maintains its headquarters in the United States if
the taxpayer has ever been headquartered in the United
States,
``(2) pays at least 60 percent of each employee's health
care premiums,
``(3) has in effect, and operates in accordance with, a
policy requiring neutrality in employee organizing drives,
``(4) if such taxpayer employs at least 50 employees on
average during the taxable year--
``(A) maintains or increases the number of full-time
workers in the United States relative to the number of full-
time workers outside of the United States,
``(B) compensates each employee of the taxpayer at an
hourly rate (or equivalent thereof) not less than an amount
equal to the Federal poverty level for a family of three for
the calendar year in which the taxable year begins divided by
2,080,
``(C) provides either--
``(i) a defined contribution plan which for any plan year--

``(I) requires the employer to make nonelective
contributions of at least 5 percent of compensation for each
employee who is not a highly compensated employee, or
``(II) requires the employer to make matching contributions
of 100 percent of the elective contributions of each employee
who is not a highly compensated employee to the extent such
contributions do not exceed the percentage specified by the
plan (not less than 5 percent) of the employee's
compensation, or

``(ii) a defined benefit plan which for any plan year
requires the employer to make contributions on behalf of each
employee who is not a highly compensated employee in an
amount which will provide an accrued benefit under the plan
for the plan year which is not less than 5 percent of the
employee's compensation, and
``(D) provides full differential salary and insurance
benefits for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are
called for active duty, and
``(5) if such taxpayer employs less than 50 employees on
average during the taxable year, either--
``(A) compensates each employee of the taxpayer at an
hourly rate (or equivalent thereof) not less than an amount
equal to the Federal poverty level for a family of 3 for the
calendar year in which the taxable year begins divided by
2,080, or
``(B) provides either--
``(i) a defined contribution plan which for any plan year--

``(ii) a defined benefit plan which for any plan year
requires the employer to make contributions on behalf of each
employee who is not a highly compensated employee in an
amount which will provide an accrued benefit under the plan
for the plan year which is not less than 5 percent of the
employee's compensation.''.
(b) Allowance as General Business Credit.--Section 38(b) of
the Internal Revenue Code or 1986 is amended by striking
``plus'' at the end of paragraph (30), by striking the period
at the end of paragraph (31) and inserting ``, plus'', and by
adding at the end the following:
``(32) the Patriot employer credit determined under section
45O.''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2007.
______

By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Cornyn):
S. 1946. A bill to help Federal prosecutors and investigators combat
public corruption by strengthening and clarifying the law; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Cornyn to
introduce the Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act of 2007, a
bill that will strengthen and clarify key aspects of Federal criminal
law and provide new tools to help investigators and prosecutors attack
public corruption nationwide. This is the time to restore the faith of
the American people in their Government. Congress took an important
step in that direction today in passing long-awaited ethics and
lobbying reforms that will tighten restrictions on those of us who hold
public office, and those who seek to lobby us on behalf of private
industry. But rooting out the kinds of rampant public corruption we
have seen in recent years requires us to go further and to give
prosecutors the tools they need to effectively investigate and
prosecute criminal public corruption offenses.
The most serious corruption cannot be prevented only by changing our
own rules. Bribery and extortion are committed by people bent on
getting around the rules and banking that they will not get caught.
These offenses are very difficult to detect and even harder to prove.
Because they attack the core of our democracy, these offenses must be
found out and punished. Congress must send a signal that it will not
tolerate this corruption by providing better tools for Federal
prosecutors to combat it. This b1ll will do exactly that.
The bill Senator Cornyn and I introduce today, like a bill that I
introduced in the Senate in January, will provide investigators and
prosecutors more time and resources to pursue public corruption cases.
But it goes a step further by amending several key statutes to broaden
their application in corruption contexts and to prevent corrupt public
officials and their accomplices from evading or defeating prosecution
based on existing legal ambiguities.
The bill will help improve the prosecution of public corruption
offenses in three fundamental ways. First, the bill would give
investigators and prosecutors more time and resources to uncover,
charge, and prove three of the most serious and corrosive public
corruption offenses. Specifically, it would extend the statute of
limitations from 5 years to 6 years for prosecutions involving bribery,
deprivation of honest services by a public official, and extortion by a
public official. Public corruption cases are among the most difficult
and time-consuming cases to investigate and prosecute. They often
require the use of informants and electronic monitoring, as well as
review of extensive financial and electronic records, techniques which
take time to develop and implement. Bank fraud, arson and passport
fraud, among other

[[Page S10796]]

offenses, all have 10-year statutes of limitations. Public corruption
offenses cut to the heart of our democracy, and a more modest increase
to the statute of limitations is a reasonable step to help our
corruption investigators and prosecutors do their jobs.
The bill would also provide significant additional funding for public
corruption enforcement. Since 9/11, FBI resources have been shifted
away from the pursuit of public corruption cases to counterterrorism.
FBI Director Mueller has recently indicated that public corruption is
now a top criminal investigative priority; but a September 2005 report
by Department of Justice Inspector General Fine found that, from 2000
to 2004, there was an overall reduction in public corruption matters
handled by the FBI. This must be reversed; our bill will give Offices
of Inspector General, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney's Offices, and the
Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice additional
resources to hire additional public corruption investigators and
prosecutors. These offices will finally be able to have the manpower
they need to track down and prosecute these difficult but crucially
important cases.
Second, the bill contains a series of legislative fixes designed to
improve the clarity and enhance the effectiveness of existing Federal
corruption statutes, such as the law criminalizing the acceptance of
bribes and gratuities, and the law that govern mail and wire fraud. The
bribery-gratuities fix resolves ambiguity in the law by making clear
that public officials may not accept anything of value, other than what
is permitted by existing regulations, that is given to them because of
their official position. Similarly, the bill appropriately expands the
definition of what it means for a public official to perform an
``official act'' for the purposes of the bribery statute to include any
actions that fall within the duties of that official's public office.
The bill also adds two corruption-related crimes as predicates for the
Federal wiretap and the racketeering statutes, lowers the transactional
amount required for Federal prosecution of bribery involving federally-
funded state programs, and expands venue for perjury and obstruction of
justice prosecutions.
Third, the bill raises the statutory maximum penalties for theft of
Government property and Federal bribery to reflect the serious and
corrosive nature of these crimes, and to harmonize these statutory
maximums with others for which Congress has already raised penalties.
Increasing penalties in appropriate cases sends a message to would-be
criminals and to the public that there will be severe consequences for
breaching the public trust.
If we are serious about addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct
that we have recently witnessed in high-profile public corruption
cases, Congress must enact meaningful legislation to give investigators
and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to enforce our laws.
Passing the ethics and lobbying reform bill is a step in the right
direction. But we must finish the job by strengthening the criminal law
to enable Federal investigators and prosecutors to bring those who
undermine the public trust to justice. I strongly urge Congress to do
more to restore the public's faith in their 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. 1946

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 ``Public Corruption
Prosecution Improvements Act''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR SERIOUS
PUBLIC CORRUPTION OFFENSES.

(a) In General.--Chapter 213 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 3299A. Corruption offenses

``Unless an indictment is returned or the information is
filed against a person within 6 years after the commission of
the offense, a person may not be prosecuted, tried, or
punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy or an attempt to
violate the offense in--
``(1) section 201 or 666;
``(2) section 1341 or 1343, when charged in conjunction
with section 1346 and where the offense involves a scheme or
artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest
services of a public official;
``(3) section 1951, if the offense involves extortion under
color of official right;
``(4) section 1952, to the extent that the unlawful
activity involves bribery; or
``(5) section 1962, to the extent that the racketeering
activity involves bribery chargeable under State law,
involves a violation of section 201 or 666, section 1341 or
1343, when charged in conjunction with section 1346 and where
the offense involves a scheme or artifice to deprive another
of the intangible right of honest services of a public
official, or section 1951, if the offense involves extortion
under color of official right.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 213 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``3299A. Corruption offenses.''.
(c) Application of Amendment.--The amendments made by this
section shall not apply to any offense committed before the
date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. APPLICATION OF MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD STATUTES TO
LICENCES AND OTHER INTANGIBLE RIGHTS.

Sections 1341 and 1343 of title 18, United States Code, are
each amended by striking ``money or property'' and inserting
``money, property, or any other thing of value''.

SEC. 4. VENUE FOR FEDERAL OFFENSES.

(a) In General.--The second undesignated paragraph of
section 3237(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by adding before the period at the end the following: ``or in
any district in which an act in furtherance of the offense is
committed''.
(b) Section Heading.--The heading for section 3237 of title
18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

``Sec. 3237. Offense taking place in more than one
district''.

(c) Table of Sections.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 211 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended so that the item relating to section 3237 reads as
follows:

``3237. Offense taking place in more than one district.''.

SEC. 5. THEFT OR BRIBERY CONCERNING PROGRAMS RECEIVING
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.

Section 666(a) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(B), by--
(A) striking ``anything of value'' and inserting ``any
thing or things of value''; and
(B) striking ``of $5,000 or more'' and inserting ``of
$1,000 or more'';
(2) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give any thing
or things of value to any person, with intent to influence or
reward an agent of an organization or of a State, local or
Indian tribal government, or any agency thereof, in
connection with any business, transaction, or series of
transactions of such organization, government, or agency
involving anything of value of $1,000 or more;''; and
(3) in the matter following paragraph (2), by striking
``ten years'' and inserting ``15 years''.

SEC. 6. PENALTY FOR SECTION 641 VIOLATIONS.

Section 641 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``ten years'' and inserting ``15 years''.

SEC. 7. PENALTY FOR SECTION 201(B) VIOLATIONS.

Section 201(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended
by striking ``fifteen years'' and inserting ``20 years''.

SEC. 8. INCREASE OF MAXIMUM PENALTIES FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC
CORRUPTION RELATED OFFENSES.

(a) Solicitation of Political Contributions.--Section
602(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``three years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(b) Promise of Employment for Political Activity.--Section
600 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking
``one year'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(c) Deprivation of Employment for Political Activity.--
Section 601(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``one year'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(d) Intimidation to Secure Political Contributions.--
Section 606 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``three years'' and inserting ``10 years''.
(e) Solicitation and Acceptance of Contributions in Federal
Offices.--Section 607(a)(2) of title 18, United States Code,
is amended by striking ``3 years'' and inserting ``10
years''.
(f) Coercion of Political Activity by Federal Employees.--
Section 610 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
striking ``three years'' and inserting ``10 years''.

SEC. 9. ADDITION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TO THEFT OF PUBLIC
MONEY OFFENSE.

Section 641 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by
inserting ``the District of Columbia or'' before ``the United
States'' each place that term appears.

SEC. 10. ADDITIONAL RICO PREDICATES.

Section 1961(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by inserting ``section 641 (relating to embezzlement or
theft of public money, property, or records,'' after ``473
(relating to counterfeiting),''; and
(2) by inserting ``section 666 (relating to theft or
bribery concerning programs receiving Federal funds),'' after
``section 664 (relating to embezzlement from pension and
welfare funds),''.

[[Page S10797]]

SEC. 11. ADDITIONAL WIRETAP PREDICATES.

Section 2516(1)(C) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by inserting ``section 641 (relating to embezzlement
or theft of public money, property, or records, section 666
(relating to theft or bribery concerning programs receiving
Federal funds),'' after ``section 224 (relating to bribery in
sporting contests),''.

SEC. 12. CLARIFICATION OF CRIME OF ILLEGAL GRATUITIES.

Section 201(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) by striking the matter before subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``otherwise than as provided by law for the proper
discharge of official duty, or by regulation--'';
(2) in subparagraph (A), by inserting after ``, or person
selected to be a public official,'' the following: ``for or
because of the official's or person's official position, or
for or because of any official act performed or to be
performed by such public official, former public official, or
person selected to be a public official''; and
(3) in subparagraph (B), by striking all after ``, anything
of value personally,'' and inserting ``for or because of the
official's or person's official position, or for or because
of any official act performed or to be performed by such
official or person;''.

SEC. 13. CLARIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF OFFICIAL ACT.

Section 201(a)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
``(3) the term `official act' means any action within the
range of official duty, and any decision or action on any
question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,
which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be
brought before any public official, in such public official's
official capacity or in such official's place of trust or
profit. An official act can be a single act, more than one
act, or a course of conduct.''.

SEC. 14. CLARIFICATION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT BRIBERY.

Section 201 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b), by striking ``anything of value''
each place it appears and inserting ``any thing or things of
value''; and
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``anything of value''
each place it appears and inserting ``any thing or things of
value''.

SEC. 15. EXPANDING VENUE FOR PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE PROCEEDINGS.

(a) In General.--Section 1512(i) of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by striking ``A prosecution under this
section or section 1503'' and inserting ``A prosecution under
this chapter''.
(b) Perjury.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 79 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Sec. 1624. Venue

``A prosecution under this chapter may be brought in the
district in which the oath, declaration, certificate,
verification, or statement under penalty of perjury is made
or in which a proceeding takes place in connection with the
oath, declaration, certificate, verification, or
statement.''.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 79 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding at the end the following:

``1624. Venue.''.

SEC. 16. AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL TO
INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE PUBLIC CORRUPTION
OFFENSES.

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Offices of
the Inspectors General and the Department of Justice,
including the United States Attorneys' Offices, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and the Public Integrity Section of
the Criminal Division, $25,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, to increase the number of
personnel to investigate and prosecute public corruption
offenses including sections 201, 203 through 209, 641, 654,
666, 1001, 1341, 1343, 1346, and 1951 of title 18, United
States Code.

SEC. 17. AMENDMENT OF THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO
CERTAIN CRIMES.

(a) Directive to Sentencing Commission.--Pursuant to its
authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States
Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States
Sentencing Commission shall review and amend its guidelines
and its policy statements applicable to persons convicted of
an offense under sections 201, 641, and 666 of title 18,
United States Code, in order to reflect the intent of
Congress that such penalties be increased in comparison to
those currently provided by the guidelines and policy
statements.
(b) Requirements.--In carrying out this section, the
Commission shall--
(1) ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy
statements reflect Congress' intent that the guidelines and
policy statements reflect the serious nature of the offenses
described in subsection (a), the incidence of such offenses,
and the need for an effective deterrent and appropriate
punishment to prevent such offenses;
(2) consider the extent to which the guidelines may or may
not appropriately account for--
(A) the potential and actual harm to the public and the
amount of any loss resulting from the offense;
(B) the level of sophistication and planning involved in
the offense;
(C) whether the offense was committed for purposes of
commercial advantage or private financial benefit;
(D) whether the defendant acted with intent to cause either
physical or property harm in committing the offense;
(E) the extent to which the offense represented an abuse of
trust by the offender and was committed in a manner that
undermined public confidence in the Federal, State, or local
government; and
(F) whether the violation was intended to or had the effect
of creating a threat to public health or safety, injury to
any person or even death;
(3) assure reasonable consistency with other relevant
directives and with other sentencing guidelines;
(4) account for any additional aggravating or mitigating
circumstances that might justify exceptions to the generally
applicable sentencing ranges;
(5) make any necessary conforming changes to the sentencing
guidelines; and
(6) assure that the guidelines adequately meet the purposes
of sentencing as set forth in section 3553(a)(2) of title 18,
United States Code.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce this important
legislation with Senator Patrick Leahy, the distinguished Chairman of
the Judiciary Committee. This bill is yet another example of the great
things that can come from bipartisan cooperation.
Public corruption is not a Republican or Democratic problem. It is a
Washington, DC problem. It is a problem in statehouses and city halls
across this country. Our citizens deserve to be governed by the rule of
law, not the rule of man. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is,
a few rotten apples have a tendency to spoil the bunch.
The legislation we introduce today, the Public Corruption Prosecution
Improvements Act, will strengthen the enforcement of U.S. Federal laws
aimed at combating betrayals of public dollars and public trust. Our
bill does this both by making substantive changes to public corruption
laws and by giving prosecutors new tools to use in their battle against
corrupt officials.
The Public Corruption Prosecution Improvements Act increases the
maximum punishments on several offenses, including theft and
embezzlement of Federal funds, bribery, and a number of corrupt
campaign contribution practices. For example, it cracks down on theft
or bribery related to entities that receive Federal funds, by
increasing the maximum sentence for a conviction from 10 to 15 year and
lowering the threshold that prosecutors must prove, from $5,000 to
$1,000. It clarifies the law in response to several court decisions
narrowly interpreting the public corruption statutes. For example, the
bill broadens the definitions of ``illegal gratuities'' and ``official
acts,'' clarified that an entire ``course of conduct'' can be the
result of bribery, and clarified that intangible property interests
such as licenses can now trigger the mail and wire fraud provisions.
Federal investigators who seek to root out corrupt officials will
benefit from new tools provided in this legislation. The bill would
extend the statute of limitations on certain serious public corruption
offenses, giving prosecutors more time to investigate and build a case.
It expands the criminal venue provisions, allowing prosecutors to bring
the case against corrupt officials in any district where any part of
the corruption occurred. The bill similarly expands the venue for
perjury and obstruction of justice.
Finally, the legislation gives Federal law enforcement what they need
most to prosecute public corruption: more resources. Funding of $25
million for each of the fiscal years 2008-2011 will help enhance the
ability of the Department of Justice and the Offices of Inspectors
General to effectively combat fraud and public corruption.
Importantly, these improvements to current law come with significant
input from the career professionals in the Department of Justice.
But this legislation by itself is only a start if we want to clean up
Washington, DC. Two additional reforms, in particular, are necessary:
the OPEN Government Act, and earmark reform. The operations of
Government should be as transparent as possible. Quite simply, refusing
to let the public have full access to Government records is a betrayal
of public trust. This Senate must live up to its duty to provide
transparent government and pass the crucial FOIA reforms contained in
the OPEN Government Act.
Similarly, Congress too often permits its members to walk ethical
tight-

[[Page S10798]]

ropes through questionable earmarking practices. The public sees these
for what they too often are: handouts of taxpayer money to special
interests. I think it is of the utmost importance that we increase
transparency in the earmarking process, exposing the process to the
light of the day.
I urge my colleagues to support the Public Corruption Prosecution
Improvements Act, as well as these other important reforms. I look
forward to debating these issues in Committee and here on the Senate
floor. And I thank Chairman Leahy for his leadership on this and other
legislation we have crafted together.
______

By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Baucus):
S. 1947. A bill to amend title XI of the Social Security Act to
improve the quality improvement organization (QIO) program; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and
colleague Senator Baucus to introduce the Continuing the Advancement of
Quality Improvement Act.
The purpose of this legislation is to reform Medicare's troubled
Quality Improvement Organization, QIO, program. QIOs and their
predecessor organizations have long been responsible for ensuring that
the care Medicare beneficiaries receive is medically necessary, meets
recognized standards and is provided in appropriate settings. They are
currently tasked with a wide variety of important roles ranging from
investigating beneficiary complaints of poor quality care to giving
technical assistance to Medicare providers for improving health care
quality.
I have been an advocate of reforming the QIO program for quite some
time. About 2 years ago, I initiated an investigation into a number of
the QIOs. Those investigations revealed a program that is in desperate
need of reform. This program was running with little or no oversight,
and it was expending more than $1 billion every 3 years with little
measurable results. In other words, I found trouble. Let me elaborate
on a few disturbing things that I discovered. I found that one QIO
leased residential properties for board members and a CEO. That same
QIO also used Federal funds to lease automobiles for its top
executives. I also found other QIOs who had board members and staff
attend conferences, many at lavish resorts.
I was not the only one to identify serous concerns with the QIOs.
Others identified concerns too. Specifically, the Institute of
Medicine, IOM, the General Accountability Office, GAO, and the
Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, Office of the Inspector
Geheral (OIG) all identified numerous concerns about the effectiveness
of this program. These independent organizations also voiced their
concerns with the manner in which it is operated and have made
recommendations for major reform. Their findings clearly show the need
to hold the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, and the
organizations that serve as QIOs accountable for the important tasks
they must perform.
The Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act will ensure
that the QIO program is not only effective in improving the quality of
care provided to our Medicare beneficiaries, but also that it operates
in an effective, efficient and accountable manner. Much of this
legislation is based on the investigations that I conducted and the
troubling findings that I came across and on the work of the IOM, the
GAO, and the HHS OIG.
First, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act
would focus the mission of the QIO program on quality improvement. QIOs
currently have many diverse responsibilities. As a result, they served
conflicting roles of both ``regulator'' and ``technical assistant.''
This conflict poses significant barriers to QIOs effectively serving
either role, and we have come to learn that they really don't perform
either function particularly well.
The legislation would also address this conflict by following the
IOM's recommendation to make the sole purpose of QIOs to be technical
assistants for quality improvement and performance measurement. The HHS
Secretary would be required to transfer all other QIO: responsibilities
to other entities called Medicare Provider Review Organizations, MPROs,
in a manner that will support the needs of beneficiaries and be
accountable to them.
Second, the legislation would improve the beneficiary complaint
review process that I think is in desperate need of reform. You may
recall that in 2006 we read about the plight of Mr. Schiff. Mr. Schiff
went to a QIO and filed a complaint about the care provided to his
wife, who died. The QIO in that case was unresponsive to Mr. Schiff. He
was forced to take legal action to learn what the QIO found out about
his wife's death. He should not have had to do that. After all, he was
the one who filed the complaint with the QIO in the first place because
he thought that someone did something wrong that lead to his wife's
death. It was at that juncture that I learned that the beneficiary
complaint review process was too opaque and ineffective. More
importantly, beneficiaries were not being properly served. In fact, I
came to learn that complainants often do not receive the findings of
the investigation conducted by the QIO. Now I ask; what sense does that
make?
The Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act would
require MPROs to report the investigational findings to the complainant
and refer the provider to a QIO for technical assistance and/or the
appropriate regulatory body for sanctions. In other words, this part of
the bill would bring transparency to a process now shrouded in a cloud
of silence.
Third, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act
would ensure that limited resources go to providers that need them the
most. The GAO recently found that QIOs prioritized their assistance to
providers who would be easiest to help rather than the providers who
were most in need of help. In other words the QIOs decided it was
easier to take a B plus student and make them into an A student rather
than putting their resources into the D student to bring them up to
par. I guess that way they thought that they would look better and more
successful. But if you ask me; that is not the best way to spend
limited taxpayer resources. Now, this bill will insure that if demand
for technical assistance exceeds available resources, the QIOs would
give priority to providers that are in rural or underserved areas, in
financial need, have low performance measures or have a significant
number of beneficiary complaints. In other words the help is going to
go to those who need it most.
Fourth, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act
would make QIO data more available to CMS and providers for quality
improvement and patient safety purposes. Amazingly enough, QIOs are
currently restricted from sharing such data despite the obvious value
of this data for improving health care quality. This legislation would
permit the sharing of QIO data with providers for quality improvement
and patient safety purposes and require CMS to make recommendations on
how to improve the data sharing process.

Fifth, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act
would promote competition in the QIO program. This is a giant leap
forward. These organizations are currently not subject to significant
competition because of limitations on who can be a QIO and the
availability of noncompetitive contract renewals. This lack of
competition has led to a gross lack of accountability and stagnation in
the QIO program. This legislation would promote competition by allowing
other types of organizations to serve as QIOs and eliminate
noncompetitive renewals.
Sixth, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act
would enhance governance at the QIOs. During the course of my
investigations I identified repeated failures in governance. I exposed
board members who were more interested in helping themselves than
helping others.
This bill will also address board member conflicts of interest. My
investigations identified numerous incidents of questionable QIO
governance practices and board member conflicts of interest. Since the
QIO program receives over $400 million in taxpayer funding every year,
it is reasonable for us to expect not only that QIOs are governed in an
ethical manner free of conflicts of interest, but also that CMS
appropriately oversees the program. This

[[Page S10799]]

legislation would require QIOs to comply with board governance
requirements and would require CMS to establish procedures to address
conflicts of interest and follow those procedures.
Finally, the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement Act
would increase much needed accountability in the QIO program. The I0M,
the GAO and the HHS OIG have all questioned the effectiveness of the
QIO program. This legislation would require the Secretary to perform
interim and final evaluations of program effectiveness not only at the
individual QIO level, but at the overall QIO program level as a whole.
Also, high performing QIOs would receive financial rewards while low
performing QIOs would receive financial penalties. Finally, the
Secretary would be required to submit a more detailed annual report
showing performance results of QIOs and MPROs and details on how
taxpayer dollars are spent.
We have been placing more emphasis on the quality of care that our
Medicare beneficiaries receive from providers. You see this as we
require more transparency in the Medicare program with the public
reporting of provider quality measures. You also see this as we
transform Medicare from being a passive payer of services of any
quality to a value-based purchaser. These are important reforms that
will help improve the quality of care provided in the Medicare program
and work toward ensuring that limited resources are used more
efficiently and wisely.
As we move toward a payment system based on quality, the reforms in
this bill will position the QIO program to support that transformation
in Medicare to a quality-based purchaser by making the tools and
assistance available to help Medicare providers improve the quality of
the care they provide. The Continuing the Advancement of Quality
Improvement Act would ensure the QIO program's ability to provide this
assistance in an effective, efficient and accountable manner and
correct the problems currently plaguing the program.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator
Grassley in introducing the Continuing the Advancement of Quality
Improvement Act of 2007.
This bill represents another step in our commitment to improving the
quality of care provided for Medicare beneficiaries and all Americans.
The Medicare program funds Quality Improvement Organizations, known
as QIOs, in part to work with health care providers to help them
improve the quality of care they provide.
QIOs have played an evolving role in Medicare. Recently, the QIO
program has received a great deal of attention. Not only did Senator
Grassley and I have the Senate Finance Committee look into aspects of
QIO operations, but the Institute of Medicine, the Government
Accountability Office, and the Health and Human Services' Inspector
General have all opined about QIOs as well. It seems there is a
consensus that the QIO program could be doing more to help improve the
quality of care.
That is not to say that QIOs have not been doing good work and
providing valuable services up until now. Quite the opposite. However,
over the course of time, QIOs have been tasked with a number of
responsibilities and the program's mission has become blurred.
What Senator Grassley and I found, as well as the IOM, the GAO, and
the HHS, OIG, is that the QIO program needs a sharper focus. Its
mission to improve quality must be clear and unambiguous. Therefore,
the Continuing the Advancement of Quality Improvement, or CAQI, Act
would focus QIOs on providing technical assistance for quality
improvement and performance measurement.
The bill would separate the beneficiary complaint process from QIOs
and give this responsibility to Medicare Provider Review Organizations,
which will be required to report to the complainant and refer the
provider to a QIO for technical assistance and/or the appropriate
regulatory body for sanctions. This will make the complaint review
process stronger.
The CAQI Act would ensure that QIOs devote their attention to the
health care providers that need help the most. It would also permit
sharing QIO data with providers for quality improvement and patient
safety purposes.
The Finance Committee investigation of the QIO program led Senator
Grassley and I to include certain provisions we believe will enhance
the integrity of the program. So, the CAQI Act would promote
competition by allowing other types of organizations to serve as QIOs
and eliminating noncompetitive renewals.
To ensure ``corporate'' integrity, the CAQI Act would establish
requirements for governance and boards of directors at the QIOs, as
well as requiring CMS to establish ways to avoid conflicts of interest.
The CAQI Act aims to ensure greater accountability for individual
QIOs, and the QIO program as a whole. It would require the Secretary to
perform evaluations of the effectiveness of each QIO and the whole
program. QIOs would be evaluated on consistent measures that are based
on nationwide priorities for quality improvement. The Secretary would
be required to report to Congress annually on QIO performance,
including how program funds were spent.
The QIO program is an asset to the Medicare program and the health
care system in general. We have an opportunity to improve its
effectiveness. We can make it a more useful tool as we continue
advancing toward quality improvement. We have a duty to make the
Medicare program as strong and robust as it can be. The Continuing the
Advancement of Quality Improvement Act presents an opportunity to do
just that. Senator Grassley and I urge our Colleagues to support it.
______

By Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Craig, and Mr.
Domenici):
S. 1949. A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to provide
loans to certain organizations in certain States to address habitats
and ecosystems and to address and prevent invasive species; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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. 1949

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 ``100th Meridian Invasive
Species State Revolving Loan Fund''.

SEC. 2. PURPOSES.

The purpose of this Act is to encourage partnerships among
Federal and State agencies, Indian tribes, academic
institutions, and public and private stakeholders--
(1) to prevent against the regrowth and introduction of
harmful invasive species;
(2) to protect, enhance, restore, and manage a variety of
habitats for native plants, fish, and wildlife; and
(3) to establish a rapid response capability to combat
incipient harmful invasive species.

SEC. 3. 100TH MERIDIAN INVASIVE SPECIES STATE REVOLVING FUND.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Ecosystem.--The term ``ecosystem'' means an area,
considered as a whole, that contains living organisms that
interact with each other and with the non-living environment.
(2) Eligible state.--The term ``eligible State'' means any
State located in Region 4, as determined by the Census
Bureau.
(3) Fund.--The term ``Fund'' means the 100th Meridian
Invasive Species State Revolving Fund established by
subsection (b).
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination Act and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C.
450b).
(5) Introduction.--The term ``introduction'', with respect
to a species, means the intentional or unintentional escape,
release, dissemination, or placement of the species into an
ecosystem as a result of human activity.
(6) Invasive species.--The term ``invasive species'' means
a species--
(A) that is nonnative to a specified ecosystem; and
(B) the introduction to an ecosystem of which causes, or
may cause, harm to--
(i) the economy;
(ii) the environment; or
(iii) human, animal, or plant health.
(7) Qualified organization.--
(A) In general.--The term ``qualified organization'' means
an organization that--
(i) submits an application for a project in an eligible
State; and
(ii) demonstrates an effort to address--

(I) a certain invasive species; or
(II) a certain habitat or ecosystem.

(B) Inclusions.--The term ``qualified organization''
includes any individual representing, or any combination of--
(i) public or private stakeholders;
(ii) Federal agencies;
(iii) Indian tribes;
(iv) State land, forest, or fish wildlife management
agencies;

[[Page S10800]]

(v) academic institutions; and
(vi) other organizations, as the Secretary determines to be
appropriate.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(9) Stakeholder.--The term ``stakeholder'' includes--
(A) State, tribal, and local governmental agencies;
(B) the scientific community; and
(C) nongovernmental entities, including environmental,
agricultural, and conservation organizations, trade groups,
commercial interests, and private landowners.
(b) Establishment of Fund.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a revolving fund, to be known
as the ``100th Meridian Invasive Species State Revolving
Fund'', consisting of--
(1) such amounts as are appropriated to the Fund pursuant
to subsection (h); and
(2) interest earned on investments of amounts in the Fund
under subsection (e).
(c) Expenditures From Fund.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), on request by
the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer
from the Fund to the Secretary such amounts as the Secretary
determines are necessary to provide loans under subsection
(f)(1).
(2) Administrative expenses.--Of the amounts in the Fund--
(A) not more than 5 percent shall be available for each
fiscal year to pay the administrative expenses of the
Department of the Interior to carry out this section; and
(B) not more than 10 percent shall be available for each
fiscal year to pay the administrative expenses of a qualified
organization to carry out this section.
(d) Transfers of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--The amounts required to be transferred to
the Fund under this section shall be transferred at least
monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the Fund on
the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury.
(2) Adjustments.--Proper adjustment shall be made in
amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior
estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required
to be transferred.
(e) Investment of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest
such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current
withdrawals.
(2) Interest bearing obligations.--Investments may be made
only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States.
(f) Use of Fund.--
(1) Loans.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary shall use amounts in the
Fund to provide loans to Governors of eligible States for
distribution to qualified organizations to prevent and
remediate the impacts of invasive species on habitats and
ecosystems.
(B) Eligibility.--
(i) In general.--To be eligible to receive a loan under
this paragraph, a qualified organization shall submit to the
Governor of the eligible State in which the project of the
qualified organization is located an application at such
time, in such manner, and containing such information as the
Governor may require.
(ii) Criteria for approval.--The Governor of an eligible
State may approve an application of a qualified organization
under clause (i) if the Governor determines that the
qualified organization is carrying out or will carry out a
project--

(I) designed to fully assess long-term comprehensive
severity of the problem or potential problem addressed by the
project;
(II) that seeks to prevent--

(aa) the introduction or spread of invasive species from
outside the United States into an eligible State; or
(bb) the spread of an established invasive species into an
eligible State;

(III) to prevent the regrowth or reintroduction of an
invasive species, to the extent to which the qualified
organization has achieved progress with respect to reduction
or elimination of the invasive species;
(IV) in rare or unique habitats, such as--

(aa) desert terminal lakes;
(bb) rivers that feed desert terminal lakes;
(cc) desert springs; and
(dd) alpine lakes;

(V) that is likely to prevent or resolve a problem relating
to invasive species;
(VI) to remediate the spread of aquatic invasive species
within important bodies of water, as determined by the
Secretary (including the Colorado River);
(VII) to assess and promote wildfire management strategies,
increase the supply of native plant materials, and
reintroduce native plant species intended to limit or
mitigate the impacts of invasive species;
(VIII) to assess and reduce invasive species-related
changes in wildlife habitat;
(IX) to assess and reduce negative economic impacts and
other impacts associated with control methods and the
restoration of a native ecosystem;
(X) to improve the overall capacity of the United States to
address invasive species; or
(XI) to promote cooperation and participation between
States that have common interests regarding invasive species.

(C) Sense of congress regarding multistate compacts.--It is
the sense of Congress that--
(i) Governors of States should enter into multistate
compacts in coordination with qualified organizations to
prevent, address, and remediate against the spread of
animals, plants, or pathogens, or aquatic, wetland, or
terrestrial invasive species;
(ii) the Secretary should give special consideration to
multistate compacts described in clause (i) in reviewing loan
solicitations and applications of the States and qualified
organizations that are parties to the compacts; and
(iii) if a multistate compact is entered into under clause
(i), the Governors of all States that are parties to the
compact should combine to repay to the Secretary of the
Treasury a total combined amount equal to not less than 25
percent of the amount of the loan provided under this Act
(including interest at a rate less than or equal to the
market interest rate).
(D) Petitions.--
(i) Action by governor.--On approval of an application of a
qualified organization under subparagraph (B)(ii), not less
frequently than once every 90 days, the Governor of an
eligible State shall submit to the Secretary, on behalf of
the qualified organization, petitions, together with copies
of the applications, to receive a loan under this paragraph.
(ii) Approval.--The Secretary, at the sole discretion of
the Secretary, may approve a petition submitted under clause
(i) as soon as practicable after the date of submission of
the petition.
(iii) Action on approval.--

(I) Action by secretary.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of approval of a petition under clause (ii), the
Secretary shall provide to the applicable Governor a loan
under this paragraph.
(II) Action by governor.--Not later than 30 days after the
date of receipt of a loan under subclause (I), a Governor
shall transmit to the appropriate qualified organization an
amount equal to the amount of the loan.

(E) Priority.--In providing loans under this paragraph, the
Secretary shall give priority to applications of qualified
organizations carrying out, or that will carry out, more than
1 project described in subparagraph (B)(ii).
(2) Requirements.--
(A) Loan repayment.--
(i) In-kind consideration.--With respect to loan repayment
under clause (ii), the Secretary may accept, in lieu of
monetary payment, in-kind contributions in such form and such
quantity as may be acceptable to the Secretary, including
contributions in the form of--

(I) maintenance, remediation, prevention, alteration,
repair, improvement, or restoration (including environmental
restoration) activities for approved projects; and
(II) such other services as the Secretary considers to be
appropriate.

(ii) Repayment.--Subject to clause (iv), not later than 10
years after the date on which a qualified organization
receives a loan under paragraph (1), the qualified
organization or the eligible State in which the qualified
organization is located shall repay to the Secretary of the
Treasury an amount equal to not less than 5 percent of the
amount of the loan (including interest at a rate less than or
equal to the market interest rate).
(iii) Repayment by state.--Subject to clause (iv), not
later than 10 years after the date on which the qualified
organization receives a loan under paragraph (1), the State
in which the project is carried out shall repay to the
Secretary of the Treasury an amount equal to not less than 25
percent of the amount of the loan (including interest at a
rate less than or equal to the market interest rate).
(iv) Waiver.--Not more frequently than once every 5 years,
the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Treasury, may waive the requirements under clauses (i)
through (iii) with respect to 1 qualified organization
(including the State in which the project of the qualified
organization is carried out, with respect to the requirement
under clause (iii)).
(B) Long-term management and remediation strategies.--The
Secretary shall ensure that no loan provided under paragraph
(1) is used to carry out a long-term management or
remediation strategy, unless the Governor or applicable
qualified organization demonstrates either or both a reliable
funding stream and in-kind contributions to carry out the
strategy over the duration of the project.
(3) Renewal.--After reviewing the reports under subsection
(g), if the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of
each affected State, determines that a project is making
satisfactory progress, the Secretary may renew the loan
provided under this subsection for a period of not more than
3 additional fiscal years.
(g) Reports.--
(1) Reports to secretary.--For each year during which a
qualified organization receives a loan under subsection (f),
the qualified organization, in conjunction with the Governor
of the eligible State in which the qualified organization is
primarily located, shall submit to the Secretary a report
describing each project (including the results of the
project) carried out by the qualified organization using the
loan during that year.
(2) Report to congress.--Not later than September 30, 2008,
and annually thereafter through September 30, 2012, the
Secretary shall submit a report describing the total loan
amount requested by each eligible State during the preceding
fiscal year and the total amount of the loans provided under
subsection (f)(1) to each eligible State during

[[Page S10801]]

that fiscal year, and an evaluation on effectiveness of the
Fund and the potential to expand the Fund to other regions,
to--
(A) the Committees on Appropriations, Energy and Natural
Resources, and Environment and Public Works of the Senate;
and
(B) the Committees on Appropriations and Natural Resources
of the House of Representatives.
(3) Report by borrower.--
(A) In general.--Each qualified organization that receives
a loan under subsection (f)(1) shall submit to the Secretary
a report describing the use of the loan and the success
achieved by the qualified organization--
(i) not less frequently than once each year until the date
of expiration of the loan; or
(ii) if the loan expires before the date that is 1 year
after the date on which the loan is provided, at least once
during the term of the loan.
(B) Interim update.--In addition to the reports required
under subparagraph (A), each qualified organization that
receives a loan under subsection (f)(1) shall submit to the
Secretary, electronically or in writing, a report describing
the use of the loan and the success achieved by the qualified
organization, expressed in chronological order with respect
to the date on which each project was initiated--
(i) not less frequently than once every 180 days until the
date of expiration of the loan; or
(ii) if the loan expires before the date that is 180 days
after the date on which the loan is provided, on the date on
which the term of the loan is 50 percent completed.
(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Fund--
(1) $75,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;
(2) $80,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;
(3) $82,500,000 for fiscal year 2010;
(4) $85,000,000 for fiscal year 2011; and
(5) $87,500,000 for fiscal year 2012.
______

By Mr. FEINGOLD:
S. 1953. A bill to amend the Agricultural Manufacturing Act of 1946
to require labeling of raw agricultural forms of ginseng, including the
country of harvest, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to discuss legislation I am
introducing with the Senior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, which
would protect ginseng farmers and consumers by ensuring that ginseng is
labeled accurately with where the root was harvested. The Ginseng
Harvest Labeling Act of 2007 is similar to bills that I introduced in
previous Congresses and developed after hearing suggestions from
ginseng growers and the Ginseng Board of Wisconsin.
I would like to take the opportunity to discuss American ginseng and
the problems facing Wisconsin's ginseng growers so that my colleagues
understand the need for this legislation. Chinese and Native American
cultures have used ginseng for thousands of years for herbal and
medicinal purposes. As a dietary supplement, American ginseng is widely
touted for its ability to improve energy and vitality, particularly in
fighting fatigue or stress.
In the U.S., ginseng is experiencing increasing popularity as a
dietary supplement, and I am proud to say that my home State of
Wisconsin is playing a central role in ginseng's resurgence. Wisconsin
produces over 90 percent of the ginseng grown in the U.S., with the
vast majority of that ginseng grown in just one Wisconsin county,
Marathon County. Ginseng is also grown in a number of other states such
as Maine, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina,
and West Virginia.
For Wisconsin, ginseng has been an economic boon. Wisconsin ginseng
commands a premium price in world markets because it is of the highest
quality and because it has a low pesticide and chemical content. In
2002, U.S. exports of ginseng totaled nearly $45 million, much of which
was grown in Wisconsin. With a huge market for this high-quality
ginseng overseas, and growing popularity for the ancient root here at
home, Wisconsin's ginseng industry should have a prosperous future
ahead.
Unfortunately, the outlook for ginseng farmers is marred by a serious
problem, smuggled and mislabeled ginseng. Wisconsin ginseng is
considered so superior to ginseng grown abroad that smugglers will go
to great lengths to label ginseng grown in Canada or Asia as
``Wisconsin-grown.''
Here is how the switch takes place: Wisconsin ginseng is shipped to
China to be sorted into various grades. While the sorting process is
itself a legitimate part of distributing ginseng, smugglers too often
use it as a ruse to switch Wisconsin ginseng with Asian or Canadian-
grown ginseng considered inferior by consumers. The lower quality
ginseng is then shipped back to the U.S. for sale to American consumers
who think they are buying the Wisconsin-grown product.
There is good reason consumers should want to know that the ginseng
they buy is American-grown considering that the only accurate way of
testing ginseng to determine where it was grown is to test for
pesticides that are banned in the U.S. The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin
has been testing some ginseng found on store shelves, and in many of
the products, residues of chemicals such as DDT, lead, arsenic, and
quintozine, PCNB, have been detected. Since the majority of ginseng
sold in the U.S. originates from countries with less stringent
pesticide standards, it is vitally important that consumers know which
ginseng is really grown in the U.S.
To capitalize on their product's preeminence, the Ginseng Board of
Wisconsin has developed a voluntary labeling program, stating that the
ginseng is ``Grown in Wisconsin, U.S.A.'' However, Wisconsin ginseng is
so valuable that counterfeit labels and ginseng smuggling have become
widespread around the world. As a result, consumers have no way of
knowing the most basic information about the ginseng they purchase--
where it was grown, what quality or grade it is, or whether it contains
dangerous pesticides.
My legislation, the Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act of 2007, proposes
some common sense steps to address some of the challenges facing the
ginseng industry. My legislation requires that ginseng, as a raw
agricultural commodity, be clearly labeled with the country of harvest
at the point of importation or when it is sold at wholesale or retail.
``Harvest'' is important because some Canadian and Chinese growers have
ginseng plants that originated in the U.S., but because these plants
were cultivated in a foreign country, they may have been treated with
chemicals not allowed for use in the U.S. This label would also allow
buyers of ginseng to more easily prevent foreign companies from mixing
foreign-produced ginseng with ginseng harvested in the U.S. The country
of harvest labeling is a simple but effective way to enable consumers
to make an informed decision.
I have also made sure that these straight-forward labeling provisions
are reasonable for the legitimate importers, wholesalers and retailers
of ginseng. My bill only covers ginseng as a raw root, the form in
which the majority of the high quality Wisconsin ginseng is sold. I
have also clarified the legislation to make it clear that retailers are
only responsible for transmitting the country of harvest label that
they received from the importer or wholesaler to the consumer. So if
the retailer never received the country of harvest label, it is only
the wholesaler or importer that is liable. Moreover, I added a
provision that requires the USDA to conduct outreach to the
wholesalers, importers, retailers, trade associations and other
interested parties during the 180 days provided before the labeling
requirement takes effect.
Besides the support from the ginseng growers of the Ginseng Board of
Wisconsin, I am glad to have the support of the American Herbal
Products Association and the United Natural Products Alliance. The
support of both the growers of ginseng and these trade associations
focused on herbal and natural products are further testament to the
broad support for the legislation Senator Kohl and I introduce today.
These commonsense reforms would give ginseng growers the support they
deserve and help consumers make informed choices about the ginseng that
they consume. We must ensure that when ginseng consumers seek out a
high-quality ginseng root--such as Wisconsin-grown ginseng, they are
getting the real thing, not a knock-off.
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. 1953

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

[[Page S10802]]

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Ginseng Harvest Labeling Act
of 2007''.

SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF COUNTRY OF HARVEST FOR GINSENG.

The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``Subtitle E--Ginseng

``SEC. 291. DISCLOSURE OF COUNTRY OF HARVEST.

``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
``(1) Ginseng.--The term `ginseng' means an herb or herbal
ingredient that is derived from a plant classified within the
genus Panax.
``(2) Raw agricultural commodity.--The term `raw
agricultural commodity' has the meaning given the term in
section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 321).
``(3) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary
of Agriculture.
``(b) Disclosure.--
``(1) In general.--A person that offers ginseng for sale as
a raw agricultural commodity shall disclose to a potential
purchaser the country of harvest of the ginseng.
``(2) Importation.--A person that imports ginseng as a raw
agricultural commodity into the United States shall disclose
at the point of entry into the United States, in accordance
with section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1304),
the country in which the ginseng was harvested .
``(c) Manner of Disclosure.--
``(1) In general.--The disclosure required by subsection
(b) shall be provided to a potential purchaser by means of a
label, stamp, mark, placard, or other easily legible and
visible sign on the ginseng or on the package, display,
holding unit, or bin containing the ginseng.
``(2) Retailers.--A retailer of ginseng as a raw
agricultural commodity shall--
``(A) retain the means of disclosure provided under
subsection (b); and
``(B) provide the received means of disclosure to a retail
purchaser of the ginseng.
``(3) Regulations.--The Secretary shall by regulation
prescribe with specificity the manner in which disclosure
shall be made in a transaction at the wholesale or retail
level (including a transaction by mail, telephone, internet,
or in retail stores).
``(d) Failure to Disclose.--The Secretary may impose on a
person that fails to comply with subsection (b) a civil
penalty in an amount of not more than--
``(1) $1,000 for the first day on which the failure to
disclose occurs; and
``(2) $250 for each subsequent day on which the failure to
disclose continues.
``(e) Information.--The Secretary shall make information
available to wholesalers, importers, retailers, trade
associations, and other interested persons concerning the
requirements of this section (including regulations
promulgated to carry out this section).''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect on
the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this
Act.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr.
Roberts, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Cochran, Mr.
Salazar, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bingaman, and Ms. Snowe):
S. 1954. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
improve access to pharmacies under part D; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pharmacy Access
Improvement Act of 2007. This is an updated version of a bill I
introduced last year, and I am proud to bring it back.
I am excited that this year's bill is bipartisan. I am happy that
Senator Grassley has joined me in introducing this bill. Given all of
our work together on the Medicare prescription drug benefit, I am glad
he is a cosponsor. I also am pleased to have our Senate colleagues join
us on this important piece of legislation.
The Medicare prescription drug benefit got off to a bumpy start last
year. A lot of the problems have been fixed, and the benefit is
providing millions of seniors with access to affordable prescription
drugs. Unfortunately, a number of the problems facing pharmacists
remain. We need to help them.
The Medicare drug benefit brought about big changes to the pharmacy
business. Dual eligible beneficiaries switched from Medicaid to
Medicare drug coverage. Many more seniors have drug coverage. Dozens of
new private drug plans are available.
I have heard from pharmacists in Montana who are struggling. They are
trying to help their patients. But they face great difficulty. The
success of the Medicare drug benefit depends on the pharmacists who
deliver the drugs. So we have to help them. We must act now, before
pharmacists find that they are no longer able to provide drugs to
Medicare beneficiaries, or to provide drugs at all.
The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would do several things to help
pharmacies. First, it would strengthen the access standards that drug
plans have to meet. It is important that the drug plans contract with
broad and far-reaching networks of pharmacies. This bill would ensure
that the pharmacies that drug plans count in their networks provide
real access to Medicare beneficiaries.
It would also help safety net pharmacies to join drug plan networks.
These pharmacies serve the most vulnerable patients and should be able
to continue to do so. Drug plans should not be allowed to exclude
safety net pharmacies. Excluding them does a huge disservice to needy
beneficiaries. This bill would rectify the problems that safety net
pharmacies have encountered in participating in the Medicare drug
benefit.
The Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would speed up reimbursement to
pharmacies. The delays in receiving payment from drug plans have forced
pharmacies to seek additional credit, dip into their savings, or worse,
as they try to continue operations. This bill would require drug plans
to pay promptly. Most claims would be reimbursed within 2 weeks. And
the bill would impose a monetary penalty on plans that pay late.
One of the most common complaints from beneficiaries has been how
confusing the practice of co-branding is. Co-branding is when a drug
plan partners with a pharmacy chain and then includes the pharmacy's
logo or name on its marketing materials and identification cards. This
is confusing, because it sends the message that drugs are available
only from that pharmacy. That is not true. To help end this confusion,
the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would prohibit drug plans from
placing pharmacy logos or trademarks on their identification cards and
restrict other forms of co-branding.
This bill would also require that plans provide pharmacists with more
accurate and updated information about reimbursement rates. Currently,
some plans do not divulge to pharmacists how much a particular
prescription will be reimbursed prior to dispensing. This bill would
require disclosure before a pharmacist dispenses. It would require
regular updating and disclosure of pricing standards.
The problems that pharmacists are facing are real. And they are not
going away. We must act on the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act before
it is too late for many pharmacists and the beneficiaries whom they
serve. We have a duty to make the Medicare drug benefit as strong and
robust as it can be. And the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act presents
an opportunity for us to do just that. My cosponsors and I urge our
colleagues to support it.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend and
colleague Senator Baucus, as well as Senators Lincoln, Roberts, Conrad,
Enzi, Schumer, Cochran, Salazar, Smith, Bingaman, and Snowe, to
introduce the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act.
I am pleased with how well the Medicare Part D program is working. It
has demonstrated how effectively private sector competition can work in
delivering an entitlement benefit. The program has defied official
predictions and come in under budget by $113 billion compared to the
baseline projected in 2006. Premiums, initially estimated at $37 for
2006, in fact averaged $23; in 2007 they fell to an average of $22. We
understand that this year's bids are even lower and that premiums are
expected to fall again next year. The vast majority of Medicare
beneficiaries have enrolled in the program, and while there were some
troubling start-up problems initially, beneficiaries are very pleased
with their plans.
At the same time, the first years of implementation of the Part D
program have revealed some areas in which the program can be improved.
One is related to pharmacy participation in the program. Changes are
needed to ensure that Part D treats pharmacies as Congress intended and
to make the program friendlier to pharmacists and independent
pharmacies.
As Senator Baucus, Senator Lincoln, and my other colleagues and I
talked to beneficiaries, pharmacists, pharmacy owners and prescription
drug plans about changes that would make Medicare Part D work better,
many of our discussions centered around how to make sure that Part D
works not just

[[Page S10803]]

for the beneficiaries, the chain drug-stores, and the plans, but also
for the local, independent pharmacies, the long-term care pharmacies,
and the safety net pharmacies that many beneficiaries rely on. That is
exactly what this bill is intended to do.
My colleagues and I hope with this bill to improve contracting for
pharmacies, increase CMS's and prescription drug plans' customer
service, and give beneficiaries better access to pharmacies. Let me
give you some of the specifics of the bill.
First, the Pharmacy Access Improvement Act would strengthen standards
for ensuring convenient beneficiary access to pharmacies. During the
first two years of implementation, CMS has permitted some plans to meet
the pharmacy access requirements in the law by counting non-preferred
and out-of-network pharmacies. The plans charge higher cost-sharing at
these pharmacies to discourage their use and drive utilization to
preferred pharmacies. Counting non-preferred and out-of-network
pharmacies to meet the access requirements is clearly not what Congress
had in mind in establishing the beneficiary access guarantees in the
law. To correct this problem, this bill would require that plans, with
certain exceptions, count only ``open'' pharmacies, those that are
accessible to the general public, in meeting the Medicare pharmacy
access standard.
It also would require plans to count only their preferred in-network
pharmacies, not the non-preferred pharmacies, in determining whether
they meet the access standard.
The bill would allow pharmacies to initiate negotiations with plans
under the ``any willing pharmacy'' provision regardless of whether they
had already rejected, or failed to act on, previous offers from the
plan.
The bill also would help ensure the inclusion of safety-net
pharmacies in a prescription drug plan's network by preventing plans
from specifically excluding 340B entities in the terms of their
contracts. 340B entities include federally qualified health centers,
migrant health centers, health centers for residents of public housing,
school health centers, as well as black lung clinics, entities
receiving grants for early intervention for HIV under the Ryan White
Act, disproportionate share hospitals, and others. They serve more than
ten million people.
Many of these entities operate their own pharmacies, which operate
under different constraints than other retail pharmacies. They may have
abbreviated hours or be available only to patients of the 340B entity.
If 340B entities' pharmacies are not available as in-network pharmacies
in Part D, these patients may have difficulty getting their
prescription drugs.
The Model Safety Net Pharmacy Addendum was developed by the Centers
for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Health Research and Services
Administration to facilitate 340B entities' participation in Medicare
Part D. Because it takes the 340B entities' special circumstances into
account, it has appropriate contract language for Part D plans to use
when contracting with safety net pharmacies. Under the bill, plans
would have to apply the Model Safety Net Pharmacy Addendum to their
contracts if a 340B entity so requests.

The bill also would require plans to include a contract provision to
allow these safety net pharmacies to waive cost-sharing if the entity
so requests. Many safety-net pharmacies waive cost-sharing for their
patients, but the Part D plan contracts typically prohibit this. Given
that 340B entities serve low-income and poor populations, we believe
those entities should be able to waive cost sharing for drugs, and our
bill would facilitate that.
We have found that long-term care pharmacies similarly operate under
conditions different from those of retail pharmacies serving the
general population. For institutionalized populations, each resident's
daily drugs must be specially packaged to help ensure that each gets
the drugs meant for her, not for other residents. Long-term care
pharmacies specialize in this, but the Part D rules to date do not
adequately reflect how long-term care pharmacies work with long-term
care facilities, which affects residents' access to these pharmacies.
Our bill would require the Secretary to establish rules that include
pharmacy access standards for long-term care residents.
Another problem that has arisen in the implementation of Part D
concerns the ability of beneficiaries to obtain extended supplies of
their drugs from a local pharmacy. Our bill therefore would ask the
Secretary to establish standards for access to pharmacies that dispense
extended supplies of covered drugs.
We have also heard from our local independent pharmacies that many,
despite contract terms, face delayed payments from prescription drug
plans. Given that the pharmacies must pay for their drugs on a more
abbreviated schedule, these delays have created cash-flow crises for
some pharmacies and put some at risk of closing. As much as I hate to
legislate contract terms, I would hate more for the independent
pharmacies in my State to close and my beneficiaries to be left without
a pharmacy. In our bill, we would require plans to pay most pharmacies
within 14 days upon receipt of an electronically submitted clean claim.
For paper claims, they would have 30 days. If they were late, the
prescription drug plans would have to pay the pharmacies interest. If a
pharmacy submitted claims electronically and requested electronic
payment, the plan would have to pay electronically.
Because long-term care pharmacies operate under unusual circumstances
compared with retail pharmacies, our bill would allow pharmacies in
long-term care facilities, or that contract with long-term care
facilities, at least 30 days but no more than 90 days to submit their
claims for reimbursement to the plans.
Another problem involves how plans use maximum allowable prices as
the upper limit of what they will pay a retail pharmacy for the cost of
a drug. What has come to light is that some plans will not disclose to
the contracting pharmacies exactly what the maximum allowable prices
are either when the contract is proposed to them or even after they
sign the contract.
It seems unconscionable to me that a pharmacy would be expected to
sign a contract where the price term is hidden and not disclosed. In
the Medicare program, no other health care providers are subject to
signing a contract in which they don't know what they will get paid.
Another abusive practice by some plans occurs when they do not update
their maximum allowable prices in a timely manner. When a
pharmaceutical company raises its price for a drug the pharmacy has to
pay that new higher price right away. But the plan might not update
what it pays for weeks. That leaves the pharmacy to absorb the
difference. The plans that do this know exactly what they are doing.
They know they are making the pharmacies eat the higher cost while they
delay updating their payment rates. To address these concerns, the bill
would require plans to disclose to pharmacies their ``maximum allowable
cost'' pricing, and also to update those prices as they change, through
an Internet website and a toll-free phone number.
Similarly, the bill would require plans to update their prescription
drug pricing standard at least every seven days. The drug pricing
standard changes frequently, and the price the pharmacy is paid is
based on that standard, and so it seemed fair to us that the
prescription drug plans' payments should reflect recent changes.
Our bill is intended to improve CMS's and prescription drug plans'
service to pharmacies. It would require the HHS Secretary to establish
a pharmacists' toll-free hotline. Prescription drug plans would have to
establish separate pharmacists' and physicians' toll-free hotlines, and
would have to comply with customer service standards established by the
Secretary. We hope this will prevent pharmacists being placed on long
holds when they have customers standing at the counter waiting for
their drugs.
We have some questions about pharmacists' average dispensing fees,
and under the bill the HHS Inspector General would conduct a study of
dispensing fees, including studying whether the pharmacist is
dispensing a standard prescription or an extended one; whether the
pharmacist is in a chain store or an independent pharmacy; whether the
pharmacy dispenses specialty pharmacy products, or is a

[[Page S10804]]

long-term care pharmacy. The Inspector General's report would be due
October 1, 2008.
I believe that with these changes, the Medicare Part D program will
work even better for beneficiaries and for the pharmacies that serve
them. As we refine the Medicare Part D program, we want to build on its
success even as we hope to make it fairer to all the stakeholders
involved, the beneficiaries, the pharmacies, the PDP plans, and the
manufacturers. I believe this bill does just that.
______

By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Ms. Stabenow): S. 1955. A bill to
authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to make grants to
first responder agencies that have employees in the National
Guard or Reserves on active duty; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, our Nation's first responders are vital to
protecting our citizens from everyday crime, and to keeping our
citizens safe from fire and health-related emergencies. Our first
responders are also vital in the event of disaster, whether man-made or
natural.
But these same men and women that keep us safe and healthy at home
are often called upon to fight for our country abroad with the National
Guard and Reserves; or sometimes they are called to active duty within
the U.S. The demands on the Guard and Reserves have become extremely
heavy during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, the demands on first responders here at home do not decrease
and local fire, police and ambulance services are forced to manage
without key employees.
That is why I am introducing the Reinforce First Responders and
Emergency Employees Deployed Overseas in the Military, or Reinforce
FREEDOM Act today. My bill will reinforce local first responder
agencies whose employees are fighting for our freedom overseas. It
establishes a grant program through the Department of Homeland Security
for first responder agencies that have employees deployed with the
National Guard or Reserves.
The grants are available to law enforcement and fire departments, as
well as public and private ambulance services. Agencies are eligible to
receive up to $15,000 for each 3 month period they are without
employees serving with the military. Primarily volunteer organizations
are eligible if they are missing a substantial part of their workforce.
The funds from these grants can be used to hire replacement employees
or for overtime salary expenses. The funds can also be used for non-
salary costs that were created by the employees' deployment with the
Guard or Reserves, or which would alleviate the impact of their
absence.
Extra funding perhaps cannot fully make up for the loss of crucial
employees. But this bill will help ensure that first responder agencies
can continue to keep the American people safe when their Guardsmen and
Reservist employees are called to defend the United States of America.
______

By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Bingaman, Mr.
Smith, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. McCain, Ms. Cantwell, and Mr. Levin):
S. 1956. A bill to amend part E of title IV of the Social Security
Act to provide equitable access for foster care and adoption services
for Indian children in tribal areas, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Finance.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I want to begin my remarks by commending
the thousands of case workers, foster families, neighbors and friends
across the country that work to provide safety, stability, and love for
the more than half a million children in the Nation's foster care
system. More than a third of foster children in Montana are Native
American. Across America, most of the Native American children in
foster care are under the jurisdiction of tribal courts. But Native
American tribes that want to administer their own child welfare systems
are not eligible for Title IV-E funds to run their own foster care and
adoption programs.
Today I am proud to introduce with Senators Domenici, Bingaman,
Smith, Stabenow, McCain, and Cantwell the Tribal Foster Care and
Adoption Act of 2007. This legislation is a demonstration of the
commitment on both sides of the aisle to provide tribes with the
opportunity to care for their own children. Children that need foster
care and adoption services because of the abuse and neglect that they
have already suffered. This bill provides tribes with the ability to
serve their children directly with culturally appropriate care and
understanding. The legislation also recognizes the good work of states
and their collaborative efforts with tribes on behalf of tribal
children.
This legislation has had a long history in the Senate and I am
pleased to have been a part of that history since the 107th congress.
It has been introduced in every Congress since then always with
bipartisan support. This bill's time has come.
We have worked very hard to fine tune this legislation in away that
is fair to states and finally gives Tribes direct access to the child
welfare system. We want a system set up to protect those that need our
protection the most not to exclude the most vulnerable members of our
society from direct participation.
The child welfare system is languishing because of inadequate
funding. And the system also suffers from a lack of culturally-
appropriate approaches to help tribal children to find loving,
permanent homes. I am further committed to working on behalf of our
child welfare system with Chairman Grassley and with Senator
Rockefeller who have always been dedicated to child welfare issues. The
Tribal Foster Care and Adoption Act provides a pivotal opportunity to
ensure that tribes across our country have the ability to access the
child welfare system. I see this as a first step in making much needed
improvements to the country's child welfare system, without significant
costs or new federal programs.
We owe the first inhabitants of this great Nation and their children
a child welfare system that works for them. We must do all we can to
provide help.
______

By Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mrs. Hutchison, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Hatch, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Graham, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Clinton, and
Ms. Snowe):
S. 1957. A bill to amend title 17, United States Code, to provide
protection for fashion design; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for S.
1957, the Design Piracy Prohibition Act. As one who has been involved
in national intellectual property, patent, copyright and trademark
policy development for many years, I can tell you first-hand how
difficult it can be to legislate in these areas. The Constitution
expressly tasks Congress with the duty to protect the rights of
property owners, including intellectual property owners. And we spend a
good bit of time here legislating in the areas of music, art, movies,
television, radio, books, and so many other things that exist solely
because of intellectual property rights.
However, one area of our economy that has been overlooked and not
benefited from the legal framework associated with intellectual
property law is the area of fashion design. And yet fashion design is
one area where America enjoys a trade surplus and has clear leaders in
the world market. In fact, much of the world apparel and accessory
industry takes follows the lead of our world renowned fashion experts.
However, the protections of their designs are not taken as seriously as
we take other forms of property rights, thereby, hurting a thriving
American industry around the world.
In an effort to bring some balance to the property rights of
designers, Senators Schumer, Hutchison, Feinstein, Whitehouse, Graham,
Kohl, Clinton, Snowe, and I are introducing this legislation. The goal
of S. 1957 is to ensure that those who spend their time and money
developing new and innovative fashion designs are able to secure and
enforce adequate copyright protections for their hard work. And I
support that goal.
As I stated earlier, this is a difficult area of law in which to
legislate and the balancing of the rights of property owners and
consumers is often difficult. In fact, the U.S. has been changing and
refining intellectual property laws for over 200 years and in some
areas we still have not gotten it right.

[[Page S10805]]

It must be recognized that this bill is not perfect and there are
several legitimate concerns with the way this bill attempts to protect
designs. I will be working with my colleagues to make improvements to
this bill as it goes through the Senate process. Some areas of the bill
that need to be improved are: the standard for liability, the
definition of designs in the public domain, and the secondary liability
provisions. However, I am certain we will be able to work through these
issues and move this bill forward.
I want to thank my colleague, Senator Schumer, for introducing this
bill. It takes a strong will, and a strong stomach, to take on the job
of moving intellectual property-related legislation through Congress.
I'm sure Senator Schumer is up to the task and I look forward to
helping him.
______

By Ms. COLLINS (for herself and Mr. Coleman):
S. 1959. A bill to establish the National Commission on the
Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Violent
Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007.
Foreign-based terrorism has weighed heavily in the news and in our
thoughts for more than a decade. Since the first bombing of the World
Trade Center in 1993, we have seen foreign-based terrorists attack our
embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, a Navy destroyer in Yemen, the World
Trade Center again, and the Pentagon. Timely arrests prevented foreign-
based terrorists from carrying out a bombing plot directed at the Los
Angeles airport and, more recently, attacks targeting U.S.-bound
flights originating in England.
This long-standing and still-deadly threat requires continued
surveillance and aggressive action, and will for years to come. But we
cannot confine our counter-terrorism efforts to attacks organized in
and launched from other countries. As demonstrated by the bloody
bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal office building in 1995 and by
this year's arrests of suspects in plots directed at JFK International
Airport and Fort Dix, NJ, domestic radicalization and violent extremism
are also threats to American lives and American society.
The most effective border security will not prevent ``home-grown''
terrorists from attacking our citizens. We need to better understand
the triggers for radicalization and violence in order to counter the
threat of terrorists on American soil.
For nearly a year now, Senator Lieberman and I have conducted an
investigation and held a series of hearings in the Senate Homeland
Security Committee probing different aspects of this domestic danger by
examining radicalization in prisons, radicalization trends, the
Internet and violent extremism, lessons from the European experience,
and the adequacy of government counter-measures.
The harvest of information and insights from these hearings has
helped alert us to dangers, guide our oversight activities, and
formulate ideas for legislative action. The testimony and evidence we
have seen persuade me that we need to undertake an even more in-depth
examination of the threats of domestic radicalization and violent
extremism.
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act
would provide such an examination. It is a companion measure to the
bill introduced by Representatives Jane Harman of California and Dave
Reichert of Washington in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman
Harman has been extraordinarily perceptive in understanding the threat
of violent radicalization, and her bill's unanimous approval by the
House Homeland Security Committee is a tribute to her leadership.
My bill, like the House measure, includes two key initiatives.
First, it would create a National Commission on the Prevention of
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism.
Second, it would establish a university-based Center of Excellence
for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the U.S.
The Commission would devote itself to a survey of what we know, and
what we need to learn, about the social and psychological breeding
grounds of extremism, the process of radicalization, the factors that
cause people to turn to violence, the processes of recruitment and
coordination, and the phenomenon of self-radicalization and ``lone
wolf'' terrorism.
To ensure a broad range of input for the commission, members would be
selected for their qualifications by the President, the majority and
minority leaders of the House and Senate, and the chairman and ranking
member of the Homeland Security Committees of the House and Senate.
The commission's final report, to be delivered within 18 months of
its initial meeting, would provide a solid base of information and a
guide for further research and action against the dangers that we face.
A ``final report,'' however useful, cannot be the last word in the
fight against a threat that has been growing for years and may persist
for decades. That is why the bill takes the important second step of
establishing a university-based Center of Excellence focused on
homegrown terrorism, violent radicalization, and ideologically based
violence.
The Department of Homeland Security currently has 8 Centers for
Excellence focusing on various aspects of homeland security, such as
risk-analysis, food protection, and catastrophic-event preparedness and
response.
My bill would empower the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate
a new center or to expand the mission of an existing center. In either
case, such a center will provide an institution dedicated to
researching and understanding violent radicalization and homegrown
terrorism, and to developing findings that can assist Federal, State,
local, and tribal governments in dealing with these threats.
It is vital, that our homeland-security efforts extend to a
systematic and comprehensive understanding of the radicalization
process that turns people living in our midst to ideologically based
violence and terrorism. It is also vital that we create an academically
based center to sustain high-quality research efforts on this threat to
augment federal initiatives and to expand and supplement Government
thinking.
This bill, which closely parallels legislation now moving through the
House of Representatives, meets those vital needs. I urge my colleagues
to support the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2007.
______

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and Mr. Kerry):
S. 1960. A bill amend the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to
improve surety bond guarantees, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today o join Senator Kerry in
introducing the Surety Bond Improvement Act, a bill which would
reinvigorate the Small Business Administration's Surety Bond Guarantee
program. I appreciate Senator Kerry's leadership on small business
issues and his bipartisan work with me on this bill. Together, our
primary purpose is to improve the Surety Bond Guarantee SBG program and
ensure that more small businesses are able to secure the surety bonds
they require to compete and grow.
Many surety bond companies refuse to bond small businesses because of
the greater risks associated with underwriting new, unproven firms.
Countless new businesses lack the stable credit histories and assets
necessary to obtain a surety bond. Without bonding, small firms cannot
secure the contracts they need to survive. For many small businesses,
their inability to obtain surety bonds creates a barrier to entry which
prevents them from competing in defense contracting, construction,
services, and other markets.
In order to reduce the risk to the surety firms issuing the bonds,
the SBA promises to cover between 70 and 90 percent of any possible
claims on bonds underwritten through the SBG program. Many small
contractors are only able to obtain surety bonds through the SBG
program and establish a bonding history. Over time, these businesses
will out-grow the SBG program and will be able to obtain bonds in the
regular, competitive marketplace.
It is critical to understand that the number of participating
sureties in the

[[Page S10806]]

SBG program directly affects the number of small companies that can
receive surety bonds. In fiscal year 2000, the SBG program had
28 participating surety bonding companies and issued 7,034 bonds to
small businesses. As of fiscal year 2006, there were only 10
participating surety companies that issued 4,709 surety bonds. This
downturn represents a 64 percent decline in the number of participating
sureties and a decrease of 33 percent in the total number of bonds
issued to small businesses. The sureties argue that SBA's outdated fee
structure and other actions, such as unwinding bond guarantees and
recent fee increases, make it impossible for them to earn a profit and
continue participating in the program.

Our bill strives to address the reason behind the program's
diminishing participation and increasing inability to help small
businesses. To achieve that goal, our measure would 1. prohibit the SBA
from underwriting a surety bond guarantee after the agency has already
underwritten and approved the bond, 2. direct the SBA to promulgate
regulations to allow surety companies to go to non-binding mediation
with the SBA in order to resolve disputes over denied claims or other
issues, 3. eliminate existing price controls, 4. require the SBA to be
transparent in its fee structure, 5. clarify that Congress does not
require the Surety Bond Guarantee program to be entirely self-funding
or self-sufficient, and 6. raise the principal guarantee amount to $3
million.
We are collaborating with the SBA to reverse the downward trend
regarding participating sureties and boost the number of small
businesses receiving surety bonding. To accomplish this goal, the SBG
program is working to reduce approval times by bolstering the capacity
of companies to submit underwriting applications and claim requests
online. The program also plans to restructure its field offices and
conduct outreach to new sureties and small businesses needing surety
bonding. These reforms, along with the necessary legislative changes
Senator Kerry and I have proposed today, will help the program attract
new sureties and increase the overall number of small companies able to
secure sureties underwriting through the program.
I encourage my colleagues to strongly support the Surety Bond
Improvement Act which we wrote after consulting with small business
owners and surety bonding companies on how best to revitalize this
pivotal program. Without these remedies, the number of sureties in the
program will continue to fall as will the capability of small
businesses to secure surety bonds. For new companies, obtaining a
surety bond will become a onerous barrier to entry and competition that
they will be unable to overcome. I urge my colleges to work with
Senator Kerry and me to assist small businesses by passing this crucial
legislation.
______

By Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Ms. Stabenow, and Mr.
Carper):
S. 1963. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow
bonds guaranteed by the Federal home loan banks to be treated as tax
exempt bonds; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
placed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1963

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

SECTION 1. BONDS GUARANTEED BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS.

(a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 149(b)(3)(A) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions for
certain insurance programs) is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' after ``Corporation,'', and
(2) by inserting at the end the following: ``or any Federal
home loan bank,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
______

By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1964. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to
establish new separate fee schedule areas for physicians' services in
States with multiple fee schedule areas to improve Medicare physician
geographic payment accuracy, and for other purposes; to the Committee
on Finance.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
correct a longstanding flaw in the Medicare Geographic Practice Cost
Index, GPCI, system that negatively impacts physicians in California
and several other states.
This legislation will allow counties that are underpaid by at least 5
percent to be reclassified into a payment locality that reflects their
own geographic costs.
It holds harmless the counties, predominately rural ones, whose
locality average would otherwise drop as other counties are
reclassified.
Finally, this legislation is fully offset by requiring that
independent diagnostic laboratories comply with state and federal
regulations. This will allow the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
services, CMS, to take action against unscrupulous operators,
predominately in California, that seek Medicare reimbursements for
inaccurate and unnecessary diagnostic testing.
This legislation would benefit physicians who are currently underpaid
in 10 States: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Texas, and Washington.
Congressman Sam Farr has introduced companion legislation, H.R. 2484,
in the House of Representatives, which now has 12 cosponsors.
The Medicare Geographic Practice Cost Index measures the cost of
providing a Medicare covered service in a geographic area. Medicare
payments are supposed to reflect the varying costs of rent, malpractice
insurance, and other expenses necessary to operate a medical process.
Counties are assigned to ``payment localities'' that are supposed to
accurately capture these costs.
Here is the problem: some of these payment localities have not
changed since 1997. Others have been in place since 1966. Many areas
that were rural even 10 years have experienced significant population
growth, as metropolitan areas and suburbs have spread. Many counties
now find themselves in payment localities that do not accurately
reflect their true practice costs.
These payment discrepancies have a real and serious impact on
physicians and the Medicare beneficiaries they are unable to serve. My
home State of California has been hit particularly hard.
San Diego County physicians are underpaid by 5.5 percent. A number of
physicians have left the county and 60 percent of remaining San Diego
physicians report that they cannot recruit new doctors to their
practices.
Santa Cruz County receives a 10.2 percent underpayment, and as a
result, no physicians are accepting new Medicare patients. Instead,
they are moving to neighboring Santa Clara, which has similar practice
cost expense, but is reimbursed at a rate that is at least 22 percent
higher. This means that seniors often need to travel at least 20 miles
to see a physician.
Sacramento County, a major metropolitan area, is underpaid by 4.6
percent. The county's population has grown by 9.6 percent, while the
number of physicians has declined by 11 percent.
Sonoma County physicians are paid at least 8 percent less than their
geographic practice costs. They have experienced at 10 percent decline
in specialists and a 9 percent decline in primary care physicians.
Seniors' Medicare cards are of no value if physicians in their
community cannot afford to provide them with health care.
The underpayment problem grows more severe every year, and the longer
we wait to address it, the more drastic the solution will need to be.
This legislation provides a common sense solution, increasing payment
for those facing the most drastic underpayments, while protecting other
counties from cuts in the process.
This is an issue of equity. It costs more to provide health care in
expensive areas, and physicians serving our seniors must be fairly
compensated.
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
printed in the Record, as follows:

S. 1964

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

[[Page S10807]]

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW SEPARATE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN
FEE SCHEDULE AREAS IN STATES WITH MULTIPLE FEE
SCHEDULE AREAS TO IMPROVE MEDICARE PHYSICIAN
GEOGRAPHIC PAYMENT ACCURACY.

(a) In General.--Section 1848(e) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(e)) is amended by adding at the end the
following new paragraph:
``(6) Establishment of separate fee schedule areas in
states with multiple fee schedule areas to improve physician
geographic payment accuracy.--For purposes of computing and
applying the geographic adjustment factor under subsection
(b)(1)(C) and this subsection in the case of a State that
includes more than one fee schedule area--
``(A) the Secretary shall establish as a separate fee
schedule area each county or equivalent fee schedule area the
geographic adjustment factor for which would (if such
separate areas are established and before taking into account
the adjustment under this subparagraph) be 5 percent or more
above the geographic adjustment factor for such revised
locality; and
``(B) for such a locality from which a separate fee
schedule area is established under subparagraph (A), the
geographic adjustment factor indices shall in no case be less
than the geographic adjustment factor otherwise computed if
this paragraph did not apply.

The Secretary shall first apply the previous sentence to
services furnished during 2008 and shall again apply it each
third year thereafter.''.
(b) Offsetting Funding Through Requirement for Annual
Certification of Compliance With State Licensure Requirements
for Independent Diagnostic Testing Facilities (IDTF).--
(1) In general.--Section 1862(a) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (21);
(B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (22) and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by inserting after paragraph (22) the following new
paragraph:
``(23) where such expenses are for a diagnostic laboratory
test under section 1861(s)(3) performed in an independent
diagnostic testing facility in a State or locality described
in section 1861(s)(16) unless within the previous 12 months
the State or locality (whichever is or are applicable) has
certified that the facility is in compliance with all
applicable State (or local) licensure requirements.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to tests performed on or after January 1, 2008.
______

By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 1966. A bill to reauthorize HIV/AIDS assistance; to the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to
reauthorize the U.S. Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and
Malaria Act of 2003, known as the Leadership Act, the largest
international health initiative in history dedicated to a single
disease.
Five years ago, there was little hope in Africa and the developing
world of an effective response to HIV/AIDS. Tragically, many of the
nations hardest hit by this disease are among those with the fewest
resources to draw on for a response. There appeared to be little basis
for hope.
Today, the pandemic continues. Yet there has been a change, and the
American people have led that change.
The original Leadership Act authorized $15 billion in appropriations
over 5 years. And in a significant departure from earlier approaches to
development, it linked that funding to accountability for goals:
support for treatment of 2 million people, prevention of 7 million new
infections, care for 10 million people, including orphans and
vulnerable children.
As many Senators will recall, when this legislation was first enacted
in 2003, it was done with a certain amount of haste and after a request
from the President for quick action. The G-8 summit was fast
approaching, but even more importantly, rapid Senate action meant that
the program could be established quickly, so that money could start to
flow quickly to the fight. Given this, the Senate acted swiftly,
passing the bill almost without amendment.
Now we are approaching the expiration of that 5-year authorization at
the end of fiscal year 2008. Whatever our misgivings about the
Leadership Act as we enacted it in 2003, at this point we need to judge
it by the results it has enabled us to deliver. Those results are
simply remarkable.
At the time the Leadership Act was announced, only 50,000 people in
all of sub-Saharan Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Yet
through March of this year, the act has supported treatment for over
1.1 million men, women and children, over a million of them are in
Africa, in those 15 countries where AIDS was on the verge of wiping out
whole generations. In addition to these focus countries, we are working
with one hundred other countries as well touching millions of other
lives. Five years ago, HIV was a death sentence. Now there is hope.
During the first 3\1/2\ years of the act, U.S. bilateral programs
have supported services for pregnant women to avoid transmission of HIV
to their babies during more than 6 million pregnancies. In over 533,000
of those pregnancies, the women were found to be HIV-positive and
received antiretroviral prophylaxis, preventing an estimated 101,000
infant infections through March 2007.
Before the advent of the Leadership Act, there was little concerted
effort to meet the needs of those orphaned by AIDS, or of other
children made vulnerable by it. We have now supported care for more
than 2 million orphans and vulnerable children, as well as 2.5 million
people living with HIV/AIDS, through September 2006.
Effective prevention, treatment and care all depend to a large extent
on people knowing their HIV status, so they can take the necessary
steps to stay healthy. The U.S. has supported 18.7 million HIV
counseling and testing sessions for men, women and children.
Across the act's programs, the majority of services have been
provided to women and girls, and a growing number of services are
reaching children.
Our financial investment in this fight has been critical to our
success, and thanks in large part to the flexibility of the Leadership
Act, we have been able to obligate over 94 percent of its available
$12.3 billion appropriated through this fiscal year.
In addition to support for the U.S. bilateral programs, the
Leadership Act has also authorized support for the Global Fund to Fight
AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. The Global Fund provides an important
avenue for the rest of the world to substantially increase its
commitment, as we have done. The U.S. is the largest supporter of the
Global Fund, having provided some $2 billion so far. It is important
for the American people to understand and for the rest of the world to
remember, that the American people are responsible for approximately
\1/3\ of all the funding received by the fund.
As we survey the results achieved by this legislation, it is apparent
that our efforts have been exceptionally successful. But to build on
that success, we must reauthorize the legislation for another 5 years.
As we consider how to accomplish that reauthorization task, it is
important to note that the vast majority of the authorities needed for
the next phase of our effort are already contained in the current
Leadership Act.
The necessity for new authorities is in the eye of the beholder. Many
Senators may wish to enhance issues such as TB/HIV, gender, nutrition,
human capacity, infrastructure and health systems, and education. But
the current law already articulates and authorizes activities in these
very same areas, as evidenced by the many activities in these areas
that the act has undertaken under existing authorities.
In this case, I believe we should follow the old adage, ``If it ain't
broke, don't fix it.'' We have a good, if not perfect, law that is
succeeding. In lieu of drafting an entirely new bill, today I introduce
a reauthorization which preserves the bulk of the authorities that have
enabled the program succeed and makes only minor modifications.
The U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator has interpreted the existing
authorities well and has listened to the Congress and many
stakeholders. As the Institute of Medicine recently said, the Global
Leadership Act is a ``learning organization.'' The Coordinator is the
first to admit, as he has before Congressional committees, that we can
do better in every area of implementation. But new authorities are not
needed; these are issues of implementation. In short, rather than
absorbing the time of Congress, the coordinator, as well as
stakeholders in drafting an entirely new bill, we should empower them
to continue the work they are doing to improve upon program
implementation utilizing the experience of these past 3\1/2\ years.

[[Page S10808]]

Let me highlight the basic changes I am suggesting to the existing
legislation. First, it would increase to $30 billion the authorization
for the next five fiscal years 2009-2013, a doubling of the initial
commitment. I recognize that Senators may wish to revisit that funding
level, and I trust that there will be opportunities for them to do so,
in committee and on the floor.
Second, as the Institute of Medicine and others have argued, I
believe we need to keep the bill as free of funding directives as
possible in order to ensure maximum flexibility for implementation. I
am proposing that only two funding directives be included, one modified
from its current form, the other maintained as is.
The first modification would seek to address the abstinence directive
in current law. The current Leadership Act requires that 33 percent of
all prevention funding be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs.
The problem with this directive is that some countries need to focus
their efforts not on abstinence per se but on, for example, mother-to-
child transmission, an activity which is considered to be nonsexual
transmission of HIV/AIDS. The original directive thus forced theses
countries to either spend money in areas where they did not necessarily
need to spend it or to divert funds from areas where they truly needed
to.
The administration had interpreted and implemented this provision so
as to include both abstinence and faithfulness programs, the `AB' of
`ABC,' which stands for Abstinence, Be faithful, and the correct and
consistent use of condoms. The directive has been helpful in ensuring
an evidence-based, comprehensive approach to prevention. The ABC
paradigm for prevention was developed in Africa by Africans, in order
to address the wide range of risks faced by people within their
nations, particularly in the context of generalized epidemics where HIV
is widespread throughout the population. Recent evidence from a growing
number of African countries shows a correlation between the adoption of
all three of the ABC behaviors, and a clear association with declining
HIV prevalence.
Before the creation of the U.S. Global Aids Coordinator, the U.S.
Government had relatively little experience implementing behavior
change programs for global HIV/AIDS that included the whole array of
ABC behavior change. This was the rationale for the directive, and I
believe it has served a useful purpose. However, I agree with many
others that we can improve upon it as we look to the future.
The language I propose would provide that 50 percent of funding for
prevention of sexual transmission of HIV, a sub-set all prevention
funding, be dedicated to abstinence and faithfulness. This will enable
greater flexibility to countries whose situation mirrors the one just
described.
At the same time, the language would ensure the continuation of
funding for abstinence and faithfulness programs as part of
comprehensive, evidence-based ABC activities. I think this compromise
approach is the right one that can win support from across the
political spectrum and provide increased flexibility while ensuring
continued support for comprehensive, evidence-based prevention.
There are a number of other directives in the current law that need
no longer be maintained and the new bill does not contain them. The one
other directive that I believe must be maintained is that 10 percent of
funding be devoted to programs for orphans and vulnerable children, or
``OVCs''. As I have noted, there were few programs focused on the needs
of these children before the Leadership Act of 2005 and we remain in
the early stages of the essential effort to serve them. This is one of
the aspects of our effort that is most strongly supported by the
American people, the maintenance of this directive will help to ensure
that this effort remains focused on those who need our support the
most. The directive will also help ensure the success of the Assistance
for Orphans and Other Vulnerable Children in Developing Countries Act
of 2005, a bill I drafted, one cosponsored by eleven of my Senate
colleagues, and which the Congress passed in October 2005.
Finally, let me describe some new language proposed for the inclusion
regarding the Global Fund, an organization that enjoys wide support
here in Congress. The Global Fund is a critically important partner of
the U.S. in our fight against HIV/AIDS. Our contributions are not only
financial, we are also active on its board, and our U.S. personnel
overseas provide the technical assistance needed for the Global Fund's
grants to work.
However, the fund is subject to pressures from many donors and in
many directions. It has become clear that it would benefit from greater
transparency and accountability. In keeping with my concerns with
transparency and accountability of international organizations that
receive U.S. funding, including the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund, my proposed language would establish similar benchmarks
for U.S. funding for the Global Fund. I don't believe any of these
proposed benchmarks will be controversial, but if Senators have
concerns about any of them, I look forward to working with them to
address them.
It is also worth noting that the bill would maintain the limitation
in the existing Leadership Act that U.S. contributions to the fund may
never exceed 33 percent of its funding from all sources. This
limitation has proven to be a valuable tool for increasing
contributions to the fund from other funding sources, such as other
governments, and I believe there is wide agreement that this provision
should be maintained as we move forward.
In closing, let me turn to the issue of legislative timing. It is
critical to the contents of my approach to reauthorization. It is
critically important to reauthorize this bill during 2007, as opposed
to awaiting its expiration September 2008.
The US Global Aids Coordinator depends on his implementing partners,
including host governments and nongovernmental organizations, including
faith- and community-based organizations, to scale up programs rapidly
to reach as many people as possible. They have been a critical part of
programs success to date.
But HIV and AIDS are different from many diseases: once HIV-positive
persons are provided treatment or orphans enrolled in care programs,
their treatment and care become ongoing commitments for program
partners. Thus, for partners to continue to scale up programs in 2008,
they need assurances of a continued U.S. commitment beyond 2008. These
partners recognize that at this point, they have only a Presidential
proposal, not actual reauthorization.
In fact, some of my staff on the Foreign Relations Committee have
recently returned from countries receiving our assistance and verified
this concern. Various ministries of health are refusing to expand the
number of patients currently receiving antiretroviral medication for
fear that they will not receive enough money in the years to come to
purchase next year's doses for these new patients.
Without reauthorization in 2007, partners have indicated that they
will be unable to scale up programs in 2008, and as my staff have
confirmed, there is already evidence that some have begun to slow
enrollment in programs. Without continued rapid scale-up this year and
next, we may not achieve the ambitious goals for the first phase of
PEFPAR, treatment for 2 million, prevention of 7 million new
infections, care for 10 million, including orphans and vulnerable
children. However, time will be needed to develop sustainable programs
with commitments from our partner countries as we move into the next 5-
year commitment from the American people.
Thus it is essential that we act before we go out of session this
year. I recognize that we face a crowded calendar. But we can do it if
we will take the most direct path to passage, a clean bill.
This body can be proud of its contribution to the remarkable
turnaround on the issue of global HIV/AIDS, from concern to action. We
have represented well the compassion and generosity of the American
people and the demand for accountability by the American taxpayer. I
call on my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this bill to reauthorize
the Leadership Act in 2007, and to extend the authorities that have
enabled the American people to make such a difference in the lives of
others.
I have no pride of authorship. But we need to start the
reauthorization process now. I welcome the involvement

[[Page S10809]]

and inputs of my colleagues. We should let the mark-up and amendment
process work. Secondly, I would welcome the assistance of other
Committees and their memberships. Thirdly, I look for strong support
and guidance from the NGO and faith-based communities. These
organizations will be key to the reauthorization effort. We will
require the constructive engagement of the administration in this
reauthorization effort.
If we pull together and display the spirit of compromise necessary
for good legislation, we can complete the job in 2007.
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. 1966

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 ``HIV/AIDS Assistance
Reauthorization Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

Section 401(a) of the United States Leadership Against HIV/
AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C.
7671(a)) (in this Act referred to as the ``Act'') is amended
by inserting after ``2008'' the following: ``,
$30,000,000,000 for fiscal years 2009 through 2013, and such
sums as may be necessary for each fiscal year thereafter''.

SEC. 3. MODIFICATIONS TO ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

(a) Promotion of Abstinence, Fidelity, and Other
Preventative Measures.--Section 403(a) of the Act (22 U.S.C.
7673(a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(a) Promotion of Abstinence, Fidelity, and Other
Preventative Measures.--Not less than 50 percent of the
amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of
appropriations under section 401 and available for programs
and activities that include a priority emphasis on public
health measures to prevent the sexual transmission of HIV
shall be dedicated to abstinence and fidelity as components
of a comprehensive approach including abstinence, fidelity,
and the correct and consistent use of condoms, consistent
with other provisions of law and the epidemiology of HIV
infection in a given country. Programs and activities that
implement or purchase new prevention technologies or
modalities such as medical male circumcision, pre-exposure
prophylaxis, or microbicides shall not be included in
determining compliance with this subsection.''.
(b) Extension of Orphans and Vulnerable Children Funding
Requirement.--Section 403(b) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7673(b))
is amended by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2013''.

SEC. 4. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On May 30, 2007, President George W. Bush announced his
intent to double the commitment of the United States to fight
global HIV/AIDS with a new $30,000,000,000, 5-year proposal
to reauthorize the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS,
Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003.
(2) With the enactment of the President's fiscal year 2008
budget, the United States Government will have committed
$18,000,000,000 to the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief (PEPFAR), which exceeds the original 5-year,
$15,000,000,000 commitment.
(3) After 3 years of PEPFAR implementation, the American
people have supported treatment of 1,100,000 people in the 15
focus countries, including more than 1,000,000 people in
Africa.
(4) PEPFAR is on track to meet its 5-year goals to support
treatment for 2,000,000 people, prevention of 7,000,000 new
infections, and care for 10,000,000 people, including orphans
and vulnerable children.
(5) The success of PEPFAR is rooted in support for country-
owned strategies and programs with commitment of resources
and dedication to results, achieved through the power of
partnerships with governments, with nongovernmental, faith-
based, and community-based organizations, and with the
private sector.
(6) United States efforts to address global HIV/AIDS will
be multiplied by engaging in partnerships with countries
dedicating to fighting their HIV epidemics and with
multilateral partners, such as the Global Fund, which can
help leverage international resources and build upon the
efforts of the United States to combat global HIV/AIDS. In
his announcement of his intent to double the commitment of
the United States to fight global HIV/AIDS, President Bush
reiterated his call for developed and developing countries,
in particular middle-income countries where projections
suggest many new infections will occur, to increase their
contributions to fighting AIDS. HIV/AIDS is a global crisis
that requires a global response. The United States currently
provides as many resources for global HIV/AIDS as all other
developed country governments combined. But only together can
we turn the tide against the global epidemic.
(b) Purpose.--It is the purpose of this Act to expand
PEPFAR, including the expansion of life-saving treatment,
comprehensive prevention programs, and care for those in
need, including orphans and vulnerable children, in the next
5-year period as a signal of the commitment of the United
States to support, strengthen, and expand United States and
global efforts to address these health crises in partnership
with others.

SEC. 5. UNITED STATES FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN THE GLOBAL
FUND.

(a) Authority to Increase Proportional Support.--Section
202(d) of the Act (22 U.S.C. 7622(d)) is amended by adding at
the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) Authority to increase proportional support.--
``(A) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
``(i) The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and
Malaria is an innovative financing mechanism to combat the
three diseases, and it has made progress in many areas.
``(ii) The United States Government is the largest
supporter of the Fund, both in terms of resources and
technical support.
``(iii) The United States made the founding contribution to
the Funds, remains committed to the original vision for the
Fund, and is fully committed to its success.
``(B) Authority.--The President may increase proportional
support for the Fund, within the amount authorized to be
appropriated by this Act, if benchmarks for performance,
accountability, and transparency are satisfactorily met, and
if the Fund remains committed to its founding principles. The
United States Global AIDS Coordinator should consider the
benchmarks set forth in subparagraphs (C) and (D) in
assessing whether to make the annual contribution of the
United States Government to the Fund.
``(C) Benchmarks related to transparency and
accountability.--Increased proportional support for the Fund
should be based upon achievement of the following benchmarks
related to transparency and accountability:
``(i) As recommended by the Government Accountability
Office, the Fund Secretariat has established standardized
expectations for the performance of Local Fund Agents (LFAs),
is undertaking a systematic assessment of the performance of
LFAs, and is making available for public review, according to
the Fund Board's policies and practices on disclosure of
information, a regular collection and analysis of performance
data of Fund grants, which shall cover both Principal
Recipients and sub-recipients.
``(ii) A well-staffed, independent Office of the Inspector
General reports directly to the Board and is responsible for
regular, publicly published audits of both financial and
programmatic and reporting aspects of the Fund, its grantees,
and LFAs.
``(iii) The Fund Secretariat has established and is
reporting publicly on standard indicators for all program
areas.
``(iv) The Fund Secretariat has established a database that
tracks all sub-recipients and the amounts of funds disbursed
to each, as well as the distribution of resources, by grant
and Principal Recipient, for prevention, care, treatment, the
purchases of drugs and commodities, and other purposes.
``(v) The Fund Board has established a penalty to offset
tariffs imposed by national governments on all goods and
services provided by the Fund.
``(vi) The Fund Board has successfully terminated its
Administrative Services Agreement with the World Health
Organization and completed the Fund Secretariat's transition
to a fully independent status under the Headquarters
Agreement the Fund has established with the Government of
Switzerland.
``(D) Benchmarks related to principles of fund.--Increased
proportional support for the Fund should be based upon
achievement of the following benchmarks related to the
founding principles of the Fund:
``(i) The Fund must maintain its status as a financing
institution.
``(ii) The Fund must remain focused on programs directly
related to HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.
``(iii) The Fund Board must maintain its Comprehensive
Funding Policy, which requires confirmed pledges to cover the
full amount of new grants before the Board approves them.
``(iv) The Fund must maintain and make progress on
sustaining its multi-sectoral approach, through Country
Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs) and in the implementation of
grants, as reflected in percent and resources allocated to
different sectors, including governments, civil society, and
faith- and community-based organizations.''.
(b) Extension of Authorization.--Section 202(d) of such Act
is further amended by striking ``2008'' each place it appears
and inserting ``2013''.
______

By Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Nelson
of Florida, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Harkin, and Mr. Crapo):
S. 1969. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility
of designating Estate Grange and other sites related to Alexander
Hamilton's life on the island of St. Croix in the United States Virgin
Islands as a unit of the National Park System, and for other

[[Page S10810]]

purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Alexander
Hamilton Boyhood Home Act of 2007, a bill to study the suitability and
feasibility of bringing resources related to Alexander Hamilton's
boyhood on the island of St. Croix under the National Park System. I
would like to thank Senators Rockefeller, Bayh, Bill Nelson, Brownback,
Harkin, and Crapo for lending early support to this legislation as
original cosponsors. I especially note the strong support of Senator
Rockefeller, who along with his family, has a special interest in this
part of the U.S.
Too little is known about Hamilton's childhood on the islands. We
know he was born as a British subject on the island of Nevis in 1755.
By the age of 10 he and his brother James found themselves under Danish
rule on the island of St. Croix. Alexander's father had abandoned them,
so his mother Rachel Faucett was the primary care giver and bread
winner. It is believed they initially spent their days on a sugar
plantation at Estate Grange, which was owned by Rachel's sister, Ann,
and her husband, James Lytton. The Lyttons generously supported Rachel
and her two boys for a short time. When the plantation was sold, the
Lyttons helped Rachel to set up a store with an apartment on the upper
floor in the nearby town of Christiansted.
They had been there less than a year and Alexander, as an 11-year-old
boy, had already taken a job as a clerk at the Beekman and Cruger
trading post. This connection would serve him well after his mother
died in 1769 and he was left to fend for himself. His early years with
Beekman and Cruger not only supported him financially, but they
introduced him to business, economics, and trade.
Hamilton learned a great deal from his surroundings on St. Croix, and
his political ideologies as an adult were clearly influenced by his
boyhood in the West Indies. His mother was known to have the largest
library on the island, consisting of 34 classical books of various
topics. Everyday life and culture must have left an impression on him,
as well. He was constantly exposed to the brutality of slavery, which
drove the plantation economy on St. Croix. His distaste for it as a boy
would grow into political opposition to it in America. Historians also
note that maturing in the West Indies made him unique among other
American politicians of the day because he never had any loyalty to a
specific State or region. He perceived the U.S. as one unified Nation
with a strong central Government. To advocate that belief, Hamilton
would later found the Federalist Party in America.
Through his work, Alexander made several connections with influential
people in the town. As he grew older, they began to recognize his
talent and intellect and they decided to send him to New York with the
funds to obtain an education. He left St. Croix at age 17, never to
return, and the rest is now a central aspect of our Nation's history.
Hamilton went on to be one of the great statesmen of our history, a
Founding Father who was influential in all of the stages of our
blossoming Nation. He fought with the colonies during the American
Revolution and served as General Washington's personal secretary. After
the Revolution he was elected to the Continental Congress. He authored
the Federalist Papers to advocate ratification of the Constitution,
which he would pen his own name to as a delegate from New York. Of
course, he may be remembered most for his appointment as the first
Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington. His visage
is perpetuated in history on the $10 bill as one of only two non-
presidential faces appearing on U.S. currency.
Alexander Hamilton's immeasurable influence on the progress of our
Nation deserves to be remembered and recognized. The remaining links to
his boyhood on the island of St. Croix should be preserved and
recognized for the benefit of the people. The Great House at Estate
Grange is still there today along with a memorial marking the site
where Alexander's mother was laid to rest. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation which would establish and fund a study to
determine the feasability and suitability of a heritage area on St.
Croix in honor of one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton.
______

By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Dole, Mr. Graham,
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Reed, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs.
Murray, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Brown,
Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Harkin):
S. 1975. A bill to expand family and medical leave in support of
servicemembers with combat-related injuries; to the Committee on
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, 14 years ago, the Family and Medical Leave
Act, FMLA, declared the principle that workers should never be forced
to choose between the jobs they need and the families they love. In the
years since its passage, more than 50 million Americans have taken
advantage of its provisions to care for a sick love one, or recover
from illness themselves, or welcome a new baby into the family. If
ordinary Americans deserve those rights, how much more do they apply to
those who risk their lives in the service of our country? Soldiers who
have been wounded in our service deserve everything America can give to
speed their recoveries, but most of all, they deserve the care of their
closest loved ones.
That is exactly what is offered in the Support for Injured
Servicemembers Act, a bill I am proud to have authored along with
Senator Clinton. The FMLA was the very first bill that President
Clinton signed into law, and I am grateful that his wife, Senator
Clinton, continues to support the principles that I have been fighting
for over 20 years. Now, I am also pleased that Senators Dole, Graham,
Kennedy, Chambliss, Reed, Mikulski, Murray, Salazar, Lieberman,
Menendez, Brown, Nelson of Nebraska, and Cardin are cosponsoring this
new legislation today.
Senator Bob Dole and former Secretary of Health and Human Services
Donna Shalala have been instrumental in this effort as well, through
their thoughtfulness and work on the President's Commission on Care for
America's Returning Wounded Warriors.
It is unsurprising that the commission found that family members play
a critical role in the recovery of our wounded servicemembers. The
commitment shown by the families and friends of our troops is truly
inspiring: according to the commission's report, 33 percent of active
duty servicemembers report that a family member or close friend
relocated for extended periods of time to help in their recoveries. It
also points out that 21 percent of active duty servicemembers say that
their friends or family members gave up jobs to find the time. To quote
from the commission's moving report:

In virtually every case [of a wounded servicemember], a
wife, husband, parent, brother, or sister has received the
heart-stopping telephone call telling them that their loved
one is sick or injured, halfway around the world.

These loved ones bear a burden almost as sharp as the wound itself.
The very least we can give them is the assurance that their jobs will
be there when they return.
It is for these reasons that the commission recommend that the FMLA
be expanded to provide family members of combat-injured servicemembers
up to 6 months of leave to care for their loved ones.
The Support for Injured Servicemembers Act does just that. FMLA
currently allows 3 months of unpaid leave. Given the severity of their
injuries, and our debt of gratitude, our servicemembers need more.
For the first time, this bill offers FMLA leave not just to parents,
spouses, and children, but to next-of-kin, including siblings.
Families, not the government, should decide for themselves who takes on
the work of caring for their injured loved ones. This bill recognizes
that fact, and it is a major accomplishment.
Our troops are laying their bodies on the line for us in Iraq and
Afghanistan, every day. Our full debt to them is unpayable. But perhaps
the best thing we can do for them is to get out of the way, to make it
possible for the love of family to heal their wounds. With their jobs
protected, more family members will be able to do just that. What this

[[Page S10811]]

bill does, then, is break down a barrier, between our troops and the
care they need the most.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
______

By Mr. TESTER (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Baucus):
S. 1976. A bill to amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to include a
provision on organic conversion in the environmental quality incentives
program; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Leahy and
Baucus to introduce the Organic Conversion Assistance Act to help
provide needed technical and conservation assistance to farmers and
ranchers converting to organic agriculture. I wanted to thank Senator
Leahy for his leadership on organic agricultural issues and Senator
Baucus for his long-time support for Montana's farmers and ranchers.
My wife and I have spent our careers farming organically on our farm
near Big Sandy, MT. Nearly 20 years ago we were struggling to get ahead
and trying to decide if we could really make it farming while so many
of our neighbors were packing up and moving away. We knew at that time
that if we didn't make some changes to our business we would end up
like so many of our neighbors leaving rural Montana for jobs in town.
In 1988, we took what was then a risk and converted our farm to
organic production. Our motivations were mostly economic but partly for
health reasons. We wanted to farm on our own terms and to make more
money. When I farmed conventionally I felt beholden to one big company
after another from buying fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuel, to
selling my grain to a corporation and shipping it by rail at high
prices and we rarely came out ahead. Every season after I would spray
for weeds and bugs, I would feel sick for a week afterwards.
Organic agriculture let us take control of our farm and our
livelihood. More and more farmers are converting to organics as
consumer demand soars. Organics is now the fastest growing sector of
the food industry expanding at a rate of over 20 percent a year. In
Montana, we lead the Nation in organic wheat production and are a close
second in the production of organic barley, peas and lentils. Consumer
demand for organic products is growing so fast that we are now
importing a significant portion of the organic food that is found in
our grocery stores.
In the U.S. we grow the highest quality and safest food in the world.
I believe that increased production of domestically produced organic
foods will help meet consumer demand, help keep farmers on the land,
and because organic agriculture needs fewer inputs it helps conserve
our land, and clean up our air and water. But if the U.S. is going to
keep pace with imported organic products we need to get more acreage
under organic production here at home.
The legislation I am introducing today will provide conversion
assistance to farmers making the transition from conventional to
organic agriculture. Currently it takes 3 to 4 years to become
certified organic, but during that period of time producers cannot
receive the higher price that organics fetch in the market place.
Furthermore, the shift towards a new way of farming and ranching
creates technical challenges for many producers as they change the way
they do things. Offering technical and educational assistance as well
as cost-share funds for conservation initiatives under a certified
organic plan will provide a needed helping hand to farmers. Making the
conversion will help keep farmers on the land by putting a bit more
money in their pockets and help our rural communities be viable. Many
States have already adopted similar assistance programs and
agricultural producers nationwide would benefit from having a
consistent and available program in years to come.
I would appreciate the support of my colleagues as this legislation
moves forward.
______

By Mr. OBAMA (for himself and Mr. Hagel):
S. 1977. A bill to provide for sustained United States leadership in
a cooperative global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global
nuclear arsenals, stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related
material and technology, and support the responsible and peaceful use
of nuclear technology; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, the spread of nuclear weapons and related
technology and the possibility that a nuclear weapon could fall into
the hands of terrorists constitute the most urgent threat to our
national security. As experts on this issue such as Henry Kissinger,
George Shultz, Bill Perry, and Sam Nunn have all warned, our current
policies to deal with the threat posed by nuclear weapons are simply
not adequate.
We know al-Qaida has made it a goal to acquire a nuclear weapon. At
the same time, significant quantities of the material necessary to make
one remain vulnerable to theft in various parts of the world. And, to
make matters worse, the world may be on the brink of a new and
dangerous era with a growing number of nuclear-armed states, as
illustrated by North Korea's nuclear test last year and Iran's refusal
to halt its uranium enrichment program.
So today, along with Senator Hagel, I am introducing the Nuclear
Weapons Threat Reduction Act, which provides for sustained U.S.
leadership in a global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce
global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons around
the world.
Securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at their source
is the most direct and reliable way to prevent nuclear terrorism.
Thanks to the leadership of Senators Nunn and Lugar in creating the
Cooperative Threat Reduction program at the Department of Defense,
there is no question that we have made significant progress in securing
nuclear stockpiles. But there are still significant quantities of
weapons-usable nuclear material that remain vulnerable to theft. In the
civilian sector alone, there are an estimated 60 tons of highly
enriched uranium, enough to make over 1,000 nuclear bombs, spread out
at facilities in over 40 countries around the world. Many of these
facilities do not have adequate physical security, leaving the material
vulnerable to theft.
The insecure storage of nuclear stockpiles has already led to an
alarming number of attempted exchanges of small quantities of dangerous
nuclear materials. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA,
confirmed 16 incidents between 1993 and 2005 that involved trafficking
in relatively small amounts of highly enriched uranium and plutonium.
That is 16 incidents too many, in my opinion, and 16 incidents that
should not have been allowed to happen.
Experts believe that a sophisticated terrorist group could
potentially construct a crude nuclear bomb if it obtained the necessary
amount of plutonium or highly enriched uranium. The 9/11 Commission
concluded that a trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly
enriched uranium or plutonium about the size of a grapefruit or an
orange could make a nuclear device that would level Lower Manhattan.
Simply put, our ability to secure nuclear stockpiles around the world
is what stands between the safety of the American people and a
terrorism incident of almost unimaginable horror.
It is imperative that we build and lead a truly global effort to
secure all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to
the highest standards to prevent them from falling into the wrong
hands. It is also essential that we make preventing nuclear terrorism a
top presidential priority--with the resources, diplomatic effort and
funding to match the threat. We need to work with other countries to
ensure effective and sustainable security of nuclear stockpiles and to
ensure that the highest priority is placed on security of those weapons
and materials that pose the greatest risk.
The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act requires the President to
submit to Congress a comprehensive threat reduction plan for ensuring
that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable
sites are secure by 2012. The plan must clearly designate agency
responsibility and accountability, specify program goals and metrics
for measuring progress, and outline estimated schedules and budget
requirements.

[[Page S10812]]

To meet this ambitious goal, the bill calls for accelerating U.S.
programs to secure, consolidate, and reduce stocks of nuclear weapons
and weapons-usable material, including highly enriched uranium at
civilian nuclear facilities worldwide. Additional funding is authorized
for the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an
important program that secures and removes high-risk nuclear materials
from vulnerable locations around the world.
The bill calls for the United States to work cooperatively with other
countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, to develop
and implement a comprehensive set of standards and best practices to
provide effective physical protection and accounting for all stockpiles
of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material.
The bill also authorizes additional funding to improve our ability to
trace the origin of nuclear material that might be transferred or used
in a terrorist attack so that responsible parties can be held
accountable.
Given the nature of the threat we face from nuclear terrorism, we
can't succeed if we act alone. Indeed, the danger of nuclear
proliferation and nuclear terrorism reminds us of how critical global
cooperation will be to U.S. security in the 21st century. America must
lead in rebuilding the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet
common challenges and confront common threats. And this legislation
seeks to provide the tools to do just that.
While nuclear terrorism remains a dire threat to our security, it is
only one part of the overall threat posed by nuclear weapons. The
Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act also addresses the need to reduce
global arsenals and prevent the emergence of additional nuclear-armed
nations. In all too many respects, the essential bargain that stands at
the core of the nuclear nonproliferation regime is unraveling.
Countries like North Korea and Iran are demonstrating that nuclear
technology acquired for ostensibly civilian purposes can provide the
basis for producing nuclear weapons. At the same time, established
nuclear powers retain large arsenals and are reemphasizing the
importance of nuclear weapons to their security.
At the end of the Cold War, many had hoped and believed that the
world was moving in the right direction to reduce the threat of nuclear
weapons. America and Russia agreed to significant reductions in their
massive nuclear arsenals. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine were
persuaded to give up their post-Soviet nuclear arsenals. The U.S.-
Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction or Nunn-Lugar program was
established. In 1994, North Korea agreed to halt its plutonium
production program. And in 1995, over 180 nations agreed to take
further steps to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT,
and agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely.
In the last 6 years, however, these positive trends have stalled--and
in some cases regressed. While promising to leave the Cold War behind,
President Bush abandoned the very policies his successors had pursued
to bring the Cold War weapons competition to a peaceful and successful
end. He unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty. He refused to support ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He opted for an arms reduction agreement with
Russia in 2002 that does not include new verification provisions, does
not require the dismantling of warheads or missiles, and allows each
side to stockpile thousands of nondeployed weapons. And after ignoring
the findings of U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground and launching a
preemptive war against Iraq, President Bush lost much of the
international goodwill that is required to mobilize global support to
strengthen the beleaguered nuclear nonproliferation regime.
The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act calls for a balanced and
comprehensive set of initiatives that would strengthen the global
nonproliferation regime. The bill authorizes $50 million to support the
creation of a low enriched uranium reserve administered by the IAEA
that would help guarantee the availability of fuel for commercial
nuclear reactors. This international fuel bank can play an important
role in dissuading countries from building their own uranium enrichment
facilities. Additional funding is also authorized for the IAEA's
Department of Safeguards to improve its ability to conduct effective
inspections.
To win the struggle against nuclear proliferation, we must also have
the courage to lead by example. The bill calls for talks with Russia to
reduce the number of nonstrategic nuclear weapons and further reduce
the number of strategic nuclear weapons in Russian and U.S stockpiles
in a transparent and verifiable fashion, and in a manner consistent
with the security of the United States. It also calls for considering
changes in the alert status of U.S. and Russian forces to reduce the
risk of an accidental, unauthorized, or mistaken launch of nuclear
weapons.
Other initiatives called for in the bill include reaffirming support
for and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, taking
steps to reconsider and ratify a global ban on nuclear testing,
pursuing a long-overdue global agreement to verifiably halt the
production of fissile material for weapons, and fully implementing the
Lugar-Obama initiative that strengthens the ability of friendly foreign
countries to stop the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and
related material.
With a bold, comprehensive approach and strong U.S. leadership, we
can--and must--make significant strides in reducing the threat posed by
nuclear weapons. America must lead the way again by marshalling a
global effort to meet the challenge that rises above all others in
urgency securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of
mass destruction. This bill, I believe, makes a significant
contribution toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______

By Mr. REED:
S. 1978. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to award grants to implement a co-teaching model for educating
students with disabilities; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the Co-Teaching Educator
Professional Development Act of 2007 to help improve the education of
children with disabilities.
A result of the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, and
the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, IDEA, is that States, districts, and schools in Rhode Island and
nationwide have increasingly begun utilizing a ``co-teaching'' model to
make sure that students with disabilities have the highest quality
teachers. Co-teaching is a term that describes a general education
teacher and a special education teacher jointly teaching students with
and without disabilities in the same classroom. Co-teaching ensures
that students with disabilities receive not only the special
instruction, supports, and services they are entitled to under IDEA,
but also are taught the same rigorous academic content as any other
students.
However, achieving this is no easy task. Successful co-teaching
requires that educators truly work together so their knowledge and
skills truly complement one another. At the end of the day that
requires that specialized professional development is provided to these
teachers.
As such, the Co-Teaching Educator Professional Development Act of
2007 would amend Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act to award
competitive grants to school districts to provide high-quality
professional development opportunities for general education teachers,
special education teachers, principals, and administrators to ensure
that these educators have the necessary pedagogical, collaborative,
planning, and interpersonal skills to successfully implement a co-
teaching model and increase the achievement of students with
disabilities. Such professional development training would help
teachers, principals, and administrators address diverse learning and
student needs; clearly define classroom, teaching, and decision-making
responsibilities; develop effective communication, problem-solving,
classroom management, and conflict resolution skills; and jointly
develop and plan a student's IEP and overall classroom curriculum.
In short, this bill provides teachers, principals, and administrators
with the skills and tools to help ensure that children with
disabilities receive the

[[Page S10813]]

educational assistance and support they need and deserve. I urge my
colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its inclusion in
the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
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. 1978

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 ``Co-Teaching Educator
Professional Development Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. CO-TEACHING EDUCATOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

Section 2151 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6651 et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(g) Co-Teaching Educator Professional Development.--
``(1) Purposes.--The purposes of this subsection are to
ensure that--
``(A) students with disabilities are educated with their
peers in the least restrictive environment;
``(B) students with disabilities have access, with
appropriate supports and services, to the same academic
content as other students;
``(C) the requirements of section 1119(a) and section
612(a)(14)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act are met; and
``(D) general education teachers, special education
teachers, principals, and administrators who implement a co-
teaching model for instructing students with disabilities are
provided with the necessary and effective professional
development and support to enhance their pedagogical,
collaborative, planning, and interpersonal skills and
increase the achievement of such students.
``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
``(A) Eligible entity.--The term `eligible entity' means--
``(i) one or more local educational agencies; or
``(ii) one or more local educational agencies in
collaboration with an institution of higher education, a
teacher organization, or a State educational agency.
``(B) Co-teaching.--The term `co-teaching' means an
instructional delivery option, offered either full-time or
part-time, based on a collaborative professional relationship
between a teacher with expertise in delivering instruction to
students with disabilities and a teacher with expertise in a
specific core content area or a team of such teachers, such
as a grade level team or a middle school team, for the
purpose of jointly delivering substantive instruction to a
diverse, blended group of students in a single general
education classroom and ensuring that students with
disabilities receive the special instruction, supports, and
services to which they are entitled while ensuring that they
can access a rigorous general curriculum in the least
restrictive environment.
``(3) Program authorized.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall award, on a
competitive basis, grants to eligible entities to enable such
entities to provide professional development opportunities
and high-quality support for general education teachers and
special education teachers, principals, and administrators
that implement a co-teaching model. Such professional
development opportunities and support shall assist teachers,
principals, and administrators in--
``(i) clearly defining classroom, teaching, and decision-
making roles and responsibilities, shared instructional and
educational goals and expectations, and shared accountability
for student outcomes;
``(ii) utilizing research-based co-teaching strategies and
approaches for differentiated instruction, including
accommodations, modifications, and positive behavioral
supports to facilitate learning and address diverse learning
and student needs;
``(iii) improving the participation and engagement of all
students in classes that use co-teaching while meeting the
individualized needs of students with disabilities;
``(iv) improving collaboration skills for fostering a
constructive professional co-teaching partnership, including
development of effective communication, problem-solving, and
conflict resolution skills;
``(v) enhancing time, resource, and classroom management
skills;
``(vi) effectively scheduling and lesson planning for co-
teaching instruction, including common planning time for such
purpose;
``(vii) effectively involving parents and families of
students with disabilities in co-teaching program
development, implementation, and evaluation;
``(viii) jointly developing and planning a student's IEP
and overall classroom curriculum for co-teaching instruction;
``(ix) implementing strategies in a class that uses co-
teaching for improving student learning gains on required
State assessments, including alternate assessments;
``(x) providing constructive feedback and coaching on a
regular basis to improve instructional and classroom
practices; and
``(xi) developing clear and tailored instructional
strategies, plans, procedures, practices, and assessment
tools for remediation or developmental specialized
instruction designed to meet, in a class that uses co-
teaching, the goals and objectives in a student's IEP.
``(4) Application.--An eligible entity that desires a grant
under this subsection shall submit to the Secretary an
application at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by
such information as the Secretary may require.
``(5) Evaluation.--Each program receiving a grant under
this subsection shall report on the effectiveness of the
professional development being provided based on not less
than the following criteria:
``(A) Student academic learning gains.
``(B) Teacher retention.
``(C) Meeting IEP goals and objectives.
``(D) The increase in the amount of time spent by students
with disabilities on general education curriculum in a
general education setting.
``(E) Student behavior.
``(F) Evaluation of school professionals.
``(G) Parent, family, and community involvement.
``(H) The support and commitment of principals and
administrators.
``(I) Teacher satisfaction.''.
______

By Mr. REED (for himself, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Obama, and Mr. Brown):
S. 1979. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 to provide for school improvement, comprehensive, high-quality
multi-year induction and mentoring for new teachers, and professional
development for experienced teachers, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I introduce the School Improvement
through Teacher Quality Act of 2007, to foster the development of a
highly skilled and effective teacher workforce capable of improving
student achievement in this country.
We are slated to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act this Congress for the first time since 2001. The key to this
reauthorization will be ensuring that states, districts, and schools
are given the resources, tools, and support to improve student
learning, including targeted, high-quality efforts to improve a school
when it is identified as in need of improvement under the law.
Improving teacher quality is the single most effective step we can
take to increase student achievement and turnaround failing schools.
Studies have found that 40 to 90 percent of the difference in student
test scores can be attributed to teacher quality. Unfortunately, new
teachers, not just those in hard-to-staff schools, face such
challenging working conditions that nearly half leave the profession
within their first 5 years, one-third leave within their first 3 years,
and 14 percent leave by the end of their first year.
However, research has shown that offering new teachers comprehensive,
multi-year mentoring and guidance cuts attrition rates in half, and
helps these teachers become high-quality professionals who improve
student achievement. At the same time, we know that experienced
teachers also need effective, sustained professional development to
maintain and improve their teaching skills.
For these reasons, I am introducing the School Improvement through
Teacher Quality Act of 2007, cosponsored by Senators Murray, Obama, and
Brown. This legislation amends Title II of the No Child Left Behind Act
to create a new $500 million formula-based program for school districts
to provide targeted assistance so teachers in low-performing, high-
poverty schools get comprehensive, high-quality multi-year guidance and
mentoring for new teachers and systematic, sustained professional
development for experienced teachers.
First, this legislation would direct funding to districts with
failing schools to help implement a high-quality induction program for
teachers throughout at least their first two years of full-time
teaching. This intensive support for beginning teachers would
incorporate proven strategies such as: rigorous mentor selection;
ongoing mentoring with school-protected release time; research-based
professional development for mentors and school leaders; and research-
based teaching practices, formative assessments, and teacher
portfolios. Research has demonstrated that such mentoring for beginning
teachers at institutions like the New Teacher Center at University of
California, Santa Cruz provides a return on investment, $1.66 for every
$1

[[Page S10814]]

spent; increases the new teacher retention rate, to 88 percent after 6
years in some California districts; and strengthens beginning teacher
effectiveness to such an extent that their students demonstrate
learning gains similar to those students of their more veteran
counterparts.
Second, the School Improvement through Teacher Quality Act of 2007
would offer funding for struggling schools to provide their veteran
teachers with ongoing professional development and training, including
helping such schools develop and implement rigorous curricula aligned
to State standards and student needs; design and evaluate assessments;
implement strategies to improve student achievement and teacher
effectiveness; train teachers, principals, and administrators in
effective coaching strategies, analyzing school and student data, and
strategies for teaching students with disabilities and English Language
Learners; and utilize teacher leaders, coaches, or content experts to
support learning and model effective collaboration skills.
This assistance would be tied to a modified definition of
professional development based on successful nationwide models such as
the National Staff Development Council, with an increased focus on
collaboration among teachers, including engaging established teams of
teachers to plan and develop instruction across grade level and content
area and to evaluate and analyze data on student achievement and
learning goals. This professional development would occur multiple
times per week during the regular work day, and be supported by school
principals through school-based coaches, mentors, or lead teachers who
allocate time, resources, and structured facilitation to the learning
teams or cohorts.
Lastly, this legislation requires that an external evaluation be
conducted of the mentoring and professional development programs
authorized and supported under this act. Outcomes would be based on
measures such as teacher retention, student learning gains, teacher
instructional practice, and parent, family, and community involvement.
We must act on this bill and continue to push for increased Federal
investment in improving schools through enhanced teacher quality and
professional development. The stakes are too high, not just in terms of
meeting the current highly qualified requirements of the No Child Left
Behind Act, but to take the next step and ensure that each and every
classroom in America is taught by an effective teacher. Teachers are
the key to student success and student success will in turn keep our
country competitive in today's global economy.
I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation and work for its
inclusion in the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act.
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. 1979

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

SECTION 1. REFERENCES.

Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the
reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) Teacher quality is the single most important factor
influencing student learning and achievement.
(2) Studies have found that 40 to 90 percent of the
difference in student test scores can be attributed to
teacher quality.
(3) New teachers, not just those in hard-to-staff schools,
face such challenging working conditions that nearly half
leave the profession within their first 5 years, \1/3\ leave
within their first 3 years, and 14 percent leave by the end
of their first year.
(4) The rate of attrition is roughly 50 percent higher in
poor schools than in wealthier ones.
(5) A report by the Alliance for Excellent Education
estimated that the cost of replacing public school teachers
who have dropped out of the profession is $2,600,000,000 per
year.
(6) Comprehensive induction cuts attrition rates in half,
and helps to develop novice teachers into high-quality
professionals who improve student achievement.
(7) Research has demonstrated that comprehensive, multi-
year induction--such as that provided by the New Teacher
Center at University of California, Santa Cruz--provides a
return on investment ($1.66 for every $1 spent); increases
the new teacher retention rate (to 88 percent after 6 years
in some California districts); and strengthens beginning
teacher effectiveness to such an extent that their students
demonstrate learning gains similar to those students of their
more veteran counterparts.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are to build
capacity and grow effective teachers and principals in our
Nation's schools through--
(1) comprehensive, high-quality, rigorous multi-year
induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers; and
(2) systematic, sustained, coherent team-based, job-
embedded professional development for experienced teachers.

SEC. 3. SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.

Section 1003(g)(5) (20 U.S.C. 6303(g)(5)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in subparagraph (C), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) permitted to be used to supplement the activities
required under section 2501.''.

SEC. 4. LOCAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES.

Title II (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``PART E--BUILDING SCHOOL CAPACITY FOR EFFECTIVE TEACHING

``SEC. 2501. LOCAL SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES.

``(a) Subgrants to Local Educational Agencies.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall award grants to
States to enable the States to award subgrants to local
educational agencies under this part.
``(2) Reservation.--A State that receives a grant under
this part shall--
``(A) reserve 95 percent of the funds made available
through the grant to make subgrants to local educational
agencies; and
``(B) use the remainder of the funds for administrative
activities in carrying out this part.
``(b) First Award.--In awarding subgrants under this part,
a State shall first award grants to local educational
agencies--
``(1) that serve the lowest achieving schools;
``(2) that demonstrate the greatest need for subgrant
funds; and
``(3) in which children counted under section 1124(c)
constitute not less than 20 percent of the total population
of children aged 5 to 17 served by the agency.
``(c) Local Educational Agency Application.--
``(1) In general.--To be eligible to receive a subgrant
under this part, a local educational agency shall submit an
application to the State educational agency at such time, in
such manner, and containing such information as the State
educational agency may reasonably require.
``(2) Contents.--Each application submitted pursuant to
paragraph (1) shall include--
``(A) a description of how the local educational agency
will assist schools identified under section 1116(b) in
implementing induction programs pursuant to subsection
(d)(1);
``(B) a description of how the local educational agency
will assist, pursuant to subsection (d)(2)(A), schools
identified under section 1116(b) in implementing high-impact
professional development;
``(C) a description of how the local education agency will
select mentors pursuant to the requirements of subsection
(d)(1)(A);
``(D) a description of how the local educational agency
will assist schools identified under section 1116(b) in
providing high-quality mentoring and mentor-teacher
interactions pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(B);
``(E) a description of how the local educational agency
will ensure schools identified under section 1116(b) provide
protected release time for high-quality mentoring that occurs
not less than 1.5 hours per week pursuant to subsection
(d)(1)(C);
``(F) a description of how the local educational agency
will assist schools identified under section 1116(b) in
providing ongoing, evidence-based professional development
for mentors, principals, and administrators pursuant to
subsection (d)(1)(D);
``(G) a description of how the local educational agency
will assist schools identified under section 1116(b) in using
evidence-based teaching standards, formative assessments,
teacher portfolio processes, and teacher development
protocols during the induction process pursuant to subsection
(d)(1)(E);
``(H) a description of how the local educational agency
will evaluate the effectiveness of the programs and
assistance provided under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
subsection (d) and pursuant to subsection (e);
``(I) a description of how the local educational agency
will train teachers, principals, and administrators pursuant
to subsection (d)(2)(B);
``(J) a description of how the local educational agency
will utilize internal teacher leaders, coaches, or content
experts pursuant to subsection (d)(2)(C);
``(K) a description of how the local educational agency
will ensure that the induction program required under
subsection (d)(1)

[[Page S10815]]

and the high-impact professional development required under
subsection (d)(2) are integrated and aligned;
``(L) where applicable, a description of procedures that
the local educational agency will use to ensure flexibility
for agency and school leaders to facilitate placement of
graduates of teaching residency programs in cohorts that
facilitate professional collaboration among graduates of the
teaching residency program, as well as between such graduates
and mentor teachers in the receiving school;
``(M) a description of how the local education agency will
target funds to schools identified under section 1116(b) and
within its jurisdiction--
``(i) that serve the lowest achieving schools;
``(ii) that demonstrate the greatest need for subgrant
funds; and
``(iii) in which not less than 40 percent of the students
served by the school receive or are eligible to receive a
free or reduced price lunch under the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1751 et seq.);
``(N) a description of how the local educational agency
will ensure that the induction program required under
subsection (d)(1) and the high-impact professional
development required under subsection (d)(2) are integrated
and aligned with the State's school improvement efforts under
sections 1116 and 1117; and
``(O) a description of how the local educational agency
will include experienced administrators and educators,
including teacher organizations, in the design and ongoing
development, implementation, and evaluation of the induction
program required under subsection (d)(1) and the high-impact
professional development required under subsection (d)(2).
``(3) Joint development and submission.--To the extent
practicable, a local educational agency shall jointly develop
and submit such application with local teacher organizations.
``(d) Use of Funds.--A local educational agency that
receives a subgrant under this part shall use the subgrant
funds to improve teacher and principal quality through a
comprehensive system of induction and professional
development that is developed, implemented, and evaluated in
collaboration with local teacher organizations and that
addresses the needs of beginning and experienced teachers by
providing assistance, which may be provided through the
formation of induction and professional development support
teams, to each school identified by such agency pursuant to
subsection (c)(2)(M) to--
``(1) implement a comprehensive, coherent, high-quality
induction program for teachers in not less than their first 2
years of full-time teaching that shall include--
``(A) rigorous mentor selection by school or local
educational agency leaders with mentoring and instructional
expertise, and which shall include requirements that the
mentor demonstrate--
``(i) mastery of pedagogical and subject matter skills;
``(ii) strong interpersonal skills;
``(iii) exemplary classroom teacher skills;
``(iv) expertise in designing and implementing standards-
based instruction;
``(v) exemplary knowledge about content, materials, and
methods that support high standards in various curriculum
areas;
``(vi) commitment to personal and professional growth and
learning, such as National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards certification;
``(vii) experience in relating to adult learners;
``(viii) a record of engaging in cooperative and
collaborative projects with staff, adults, and
administration;
``(ix) skill in collaboration and group dynamics;
``(x) knowledge of staff development practices and in-
service education;
``(xi) excellent oral and written communication skills;
``(xii) a commitment to participate in professional
development throughout the year to develop the knowledge and
skills related to effective mentoring; and
``(xiii) a willingness to engage in formative assessment
processes, including non-evaluative, reflective conversations
with beginning teachers using evidence of classroom practice
and student learning;
``(B) high-quality, intensive, ongoing mentoring and
mentor-teacher interactions that--
``(i) establish and maintain a trustful, confidential, non-
evaluative relationship with beginning teachers;
``(ii) matches mentors, to the extent applicable and
practicable, with beginning teachers by grade level and
content area;
``(iii) assist teachers in reflecting on and analyzing
their practice and reviewing student work to inform
instruction and enhance student achievement;
``(iv) provide opportunities for observation of exemplary
practice, model lessons, and conferences with beginning
teachers on-site, during, and after school hours;
``(v) model, as appropriate, innovative teaching
methodologies through techniques such as team teaching,
demonstrations, simulations, and consultations;
``(vi) act as a vehicle for beginning teachers to establish
short- and long-term planning goals, and identify
instructional resources and support throughout the entire
school community; and
``(vii) provide a ratio of not more than 12 teachers per
mentor;
``(C) school protected release time for high-quality
mentoring and mentor-teacher interactions that occurs not
less than 1.5 hours per week;
``(D) ongoing, research-based professional development for
mentors, principals, and administrators that--
``(i) supports mentors in responding to each new teacher's
developmental and contextual needs and promotes the ongoing
examination of classroom practice;
``(ii) assists mentors in the collection and sharing of
observation data with professional teaching standards to help
new teachers improve their practice;
``(iii) provides mentors with strategies for helping
beginning teachers identify student needs, plan for
differentiated instruction, and ensure equitable learning
outcomes;
``(iv) supports the mentor in coaching strategically and
finding solutions to challenging situations;
``(v) helps mentors bring teachers together for meaningful
and responsive learning experiences;
``(vi) demonstrates models that create a collaborative
learning environment in which mentors can develop skills,
gain knowledge, and problem-solve issues of mentoring; and
``(vii) as applicable, supports principals and
administrators in identifying beginning teacher developmental
needs, selecting high-quality mentors, determining effective
strategies to conduct teacher observations, and providing
feedback in ways that support new teacher instructional
growth; and
``(E) use of research-based teaching standards, formative
assessments, teacher portfolio processes, such as the
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards
certification process, and teacher development protocols
that--
``(i) guide beginning teachers in developing and reflecting
on student learning and their teaching and classroom
practice, including structured self-assessment and examining
and analyzing student work;
``(ii) prepare beginning teachers to examine, analyze, and
reflect on--

``(I) student learning needs, including tailoring
instruction to individual and special learning needs;
``(II) student and classroom academic progress, including
effective methods for monitoring and managing such progress;
``(III) achieving the goals of the school, district, and
statewide curriculum;
``(IV) effective methods for classroom management;
``(V) representations of student work and curriculum-based
diagnostic and performance assessments;
``(VI) instructional methods, the effectiveness of such
methods, and ways to improve upon instructional techniques
for future lessons;
``(VII) the effectiveness, and ways to improve, lesson
planning; and
``(VIII) interaction with students, parents, and
administrators, and ways to improve such interactions in
order to enhance student learning;

``(iii) formulate professional goals to improve teaching
practice, which may include developing an individualized
induction plan;
``(iv) guide, monitor, and assess the progress of a
teacher's practice toward such professional goals;
``(v) assist teachers in connecting students' prior
knowledge, life experience, and interests with learning
goals;
``(vi) promote self-directed, reflective learning for all
students;
``(vii) engage students in problem solving, critical
thinking, and other activities within and across subject
matter areas and in ways that encourage students to apply
them in real-life contexts that make the subject matter
meaningful;
``(viii) use a variety of instructional strategies and
resources to respond to students' diverse needs;
``(ix) facilitate learning experiences that promote
autonomy, interaction, and choice so students are able to
demonstrate, articulate, and evaluate what they learn;
``(x) focus on the identification of students' specific
learning needs, particularly students with disabilities,
students who are limited English proficient, students who are
gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels,
and the tailoring of academic instruction to such needs;
``(xi) employ strategies grounded in the disciplines of
teaching and learning on--

``(I) effectively managing a classroom; and
``(II) communicating and working with parents and
guardians, and involving parents and guardians in their
children's education;

``(xii) involve an ongoing process of data collection and
data analysis to inform teaching practice; and
``(xiii) is used to guide professional development, and not
for the purpose of teacher evaluation or employment
decisions; and
``(2) implement high-impact, professional development that
is ongoing and sustained by--
``(A) assisting the school to--
``(i) develop and implement strong curriculum plans aligned
to State standards and student needs;
``(ii) clarify school improvement goals;
``(iii) select and implement strategies and interventions
to improve student achievement and teacher effectiveness;
``(iv) design, create, and evaluate the results of
curriculum-based diagnostic and performance assessments;

[[Page S10816]]

``(v) develop and implement professional development plans
aligned with student achievement needs and priority learning
goals;
``(vi) allocate teacher and principal professional
development resources and help develop the revised plan as
related to the professional development required under
section 1116(b); and
``(vii) make available opportunities for individual and
team learning activities that focus on increasing pedagogical
and content knowledge in academic subjects that are aligned
to student learning goals;
``(B) training teachers, principals, and administrators
in--
``(i) analyzing school, teacher, and student data and
developing instructional supports to respond to such data;
``(ii) effective coaching strategies;
``(iii) effective strategies for improving and identifying
the learning needs of students with disabilities and English
language learners;
``(iv) managing the change process, implementing high-
impact professional development, and leadership and
interpersonal skills, including conflict management and
consensus building;
``(v) effectively communicating with, working with, and
involving parents in their children's education; and
``(vi) effective classroom management skills; and
``(C) utilizing internal teacher leaders, coaches, or
content experts to--
``(i) support classroom learning; and
``(ii) model effective collaboration skills across learning
communities and access knowledge from peers teaching and
leading at high-performing schools.
``(e) Evaluation.--
``(1) In general.--Both the induction program required
under subsection (d)(1) and the professional development
program required under subsection (d)(2) shall include a
formal evaluation system to determine the effectiveness of
the program on not less than--
``(A) teacher retention;
``(B) student learning gains;
``(C) teacher instructional practice;
``(D) student graduation rates, as applicable;
``(E) parent, family, and community involvement;
``(F) student attendance rates;
``(G) teacher satisfaction; and
``(H) student behavior.
``(2) Local educational agency and school effectiveness.--
The formal evaluation system described in paragraph (1) shall
also measure the local educational agency's and school's
effectiveness in--
``(A) implementing the rigorous mentor selection process
described in subsection (d)(1)(A);
``(B) ensuring that school protected release time for high-
quality mentoring and mentor-teacher interactions occurs not
less than 1.5 hours per week pursuant to subsection
(d)(1)(C);
``(C) implementing on-going, research-based professional
development for mentors, principals, and administrators
pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(D);
``(D) ensuring that mentors, teachers, and schools are
using data to inform instructional practices;
``(E) ensuring that the comprehensive induction and high-
quality mentoring required under subsection (d)(1) and the
high-impact professional development required under
subsection (d)(2) are integrated and aligned with the State's
school improvement efforts under sections 1116 and 1117; and
``(F) ensuring that research-based teaching standards,
formative assessments, teacher portfolio processes, and
teacher development protocols are used during the induction
process pursuant to subsection (d)(1)(E).
``(3) Conduct of evaluation.--The evaluation described in
subsection (e)(1) shall be conducted by the State,
institutions of higher education, or an external agency that
is experienced in conducting qualitative research, and shall
be developed in collaboration with groups such as--
``(A) experienced educators with track records of success
in the classroom;
``(B) institutions of higher education involved with
teacher induction and professional development located within
the State; and
``(C) local teacher organizations.
``(f) Integration and Alignment.--The comprehensive
induction and high-quality mentoring required under
subsection (d)(1) and the high-impact professional
development required under subsection (d)(2) shall be--
``(1) integrated and aligned; and
``(2) aligned with the State's school improvement efforts
under sections 1116 and 1117.
``(g) Eligible Entities.--The assistance required to be
provided under subsection (d) may be provided--
``(1) by the local educational agency; or
``(2) by the local educational agency, in collaboration
with the State educational agency, an institution of higher
education, a nonprofit organization, a teacher organization,
an educational service agency, a teaching residency program,
or another entity with experience in helping schools improve
student achievement.
``(h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part
$500,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 and such sums as may be
necessary for each succeeding fiscal year.''.

SEC. 5. HIGH IMPACT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

Section 9101(34) (20 U.S.C. 7801(34)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(34) Professional development.--The term `professional
development' means a systematic school improvement strategy
that--
``(A) is designed to--
``(i) improve teachers' and principals' effectiveness in
improving student learning;
``(ii) accomplish other important school goals;
``(iii) foster collective responsibility for improved
student achievement; and
``(iv) engage established teams of teachers, principals,
and other instructional staff in ongoing professional
development designed to support and improve their
professional practice multiple times per week during the
regular work day and to the extent applicable and
practicable, by grade level and content area to--

``(I) evaluate student, teacher, and school learning needs
through a thorough review of data on student achievement;
``(II) define a clear set of educator learning goals based
on the rigorous analysis of the data;
``(III) achieve educator learning goals by implementing
coherent, sustained, evidenced-based, and content area
specific learning strategies, including lesson study,
developing formative assessments, and peer observations;
``(IV) regularly assess the effectiveness in achieving
identified learning goals, improving teaching, and assisting
all students in meeting challenging State student academic
achievement standards or other measures of student
achievement; and
``(V) inform ongoing improvements in teaching practice and
student learning;

``(B) is sustained, high-quality, intensive, and
comprehensive;
``(C) is content-centered, collaborative, school-embedded,
tied to practice, focused on student work, supported by
evidence-based research, and aligned with and designed to
help students meet challenging State academic content
standards and challenging State student academic achievement
standards;
``(D) includes sustained in-service activities to improve
and promote strong teaching skills--
``(i) in the core academic subjects;
``(ii) to integrate technology into the curriculum;
``(iii) to improve understanding and the use of student
assessments;
``(iv) to improve classroom management;
``(v) to address the identification of students' specific
learning needs, particularly students with disabilities,
students who are limited English proficient, students who are
gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels,
and the tailoring of academic instruction to such needs;
``(vi) to apply empirical knowledge about teaching and
learning to their teaching practice and to their ongoing
classroom assessment of students; and
``(vii) to provide instruction on how to work with,
communicate with, and involve parents to foster academic
achievement;
``(E) includes sustained training and mentoring
opportunities that provide active learning and observational
opportunities for teachers to model effective practice,
review student work, deliver presentations, and improve
lesson planning;
``(F) is supported by school principals, including school-
based coaches, mentors, or lead teachers when available, who
allocate time, resources, and structured facilitation to the
learning teams;
``(G) encourages and supports training of teachers,
principals, and administrators to effectively use and
integrate technology--
``(i) into curricula and instruction, including training to
improve the ability to collect, manage, and analyze data to
improve teaching, decisionmaking, school improvement efforts,
and accountability;
``(ii) to enhance learning by students with specific
learning needs, particularly students with disabilities,
students who are limited English proficient, students who are
gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels;
and
``(iii) to improve the ability of teachers and
administrators to communicate with, work with, and involve
parents in their children's education;
``(H) is focused on content that is aligned with
challenging State student academic achievement standards,
curricula or curriculum materials, and assessments, as well
as related local educational agency and school improvement
and instructional goals; and
``(I) improves the academic content knowledge, as well as
knowledge to assess the student academic achievement and how
to use the results of such assessments to improve
instruction, of teachers in the subject matter or academic
content areas in which the teachers are considered highly
qualified.''.
______

By Mr. SMITH (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Ms. Collins):
S. 1980. A bill to improve the quality of, and access to, long-term
care; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Long-Term
Care Quality and Modernization Act of 2007. I am pleased to be joined
by my

[[Page S10817]]

colleague Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.
As Ranking Member of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, I am
committed to improving the financing and delivery of long-term care.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimate that national
spending for long-term care was almost $160 billion in 2002,
representing about 12 percent of all personal health care expenditures.
While those numbers are already staggering, we also know that the need
for long-term care is expected to grow significantly in coming decades.
Almost two-thirds of people receiving long-term care services are over
age 65, with this number expected to double by 2030.
Providing quality long-term care services for America's frail,
elderly and disabled is the priority of nursing homes and assisted
living facilities. I applaud their work, but recognize we must do more
to improve care and contain costs. When you consider that eight of ten
nursing home residents rely on Medicare and Medicaid for their long-
term care needs, it is apparent that Congress has a responsibility to
improve these programs so they are sustainable for years to come.
That is why I am introducing The Long-Term Care Quality and
Modernization Act of 2007 with Senator Lincoln. This bill will address
several problems nursing homes are experiencing with federal
regulations, workforce shortages and taxes related to building
depreciation. The issue of long-term care expenditures need not be an
insurmountable task. It will require action and cooperation by public
officials and private providers as we work to find ways to help
Americans become better prepared for their long-term care needs.
However, we cannot do it alone. Individuals must take responsibility
and begin planning for their long-term care needs. With our national
savings rate in steady decline, I fear the American middle class is
woefully unprepared to meet this coming challenges. As we move forward
in our effort to help individuals stay financially stable in their
later years, we must encourage them to purchase long-term care
insurance and save for long-term care services.
Today, millions of Americans are receiving or are in need of long-
term care services and supports. Surprisingly, more than 40 percent of
persons receiving long-term care are between the ages of 18 and 64.
Some were born with disabilities; others came to be disabled through
accident or illness. No one can predict their future long-term health
care needs. Therefore, everyone needs to be prepared.
Included in the bill I am introducing today is The Long-Term Care
Trust Account Act of 2007. My legislation will create a new type of
savings vehicle for the purpose of preparing for the costs associated
with long-term care services and purchasing long-term care insurance.
An individual who establishes a long-term care trust account can
contribute up to $5,000 per year to their account and receive a
refundable 10 percent tax credit on that contribution. Interest accrued
on these accounts will be tax free, and funds can be withdrawn for the
purchase of long-term care insurance or to pay for long-term care
services. The bill also will allow an individual to make contributions
to another family members' Long-Term Care Trust Account. This will help
many people in our country who want to help their parents or a loved
one prepare for their health care needs.
It is my hope that this legislation will help all Americans save for
their long-term care needs. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this important bill.
______

By Mr. REED:
S. 1981. A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 regarding environmental education, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, today I am introducing the No Child Left
Inside Act of 2007, which will provide new support for environmental
education in our Nation's classrooms. Given the major environmental
challenges we face today, teaching our young people about their natural
world should be a priority, and this legislation is an important first
step.
For more than three decades, environmental education has been a
growing part of effective instruction in America's schools. Responding
to the need to improve student achievement and prepare students for the
21st century economy, many schools throughout the Nation now offer some
form of environmental education. Mr. President, 30 million students and
1.2 million teachers annually are involved in these programs.
Yet, environmental education is facing a significant challenge. Many
schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental
programs. Fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related
classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or
popular. State and local administrators, teachers, and environmental
educators point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift:
the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act and a lack
of funding for these critical programs.
The legislation that I am introducing today would address these two
causes. It would provide funding to States to train their teachers in
the field of environmental education, and it would provide support for
outdoor environmental education programs for children and a model
environmental education curriculum. The bill would also create
incentives, through new funding, for states to develop environmental
literacy plans to make sure students have a solid understanding of our
planet and its precious natural resources. Finally, the legislation
would reestablish the Office of Environmental Education within the U.S.
Department of Education to oversee critical environmental education
activities. This legislation has broad support among national and state
environmental groups and educational groups.
The American public recognizes that the environment is already one of
the dominant issues of the 21st century. In 2003, a National Science
Foundation panel noted that ``in the coming decades, the public will
more frequently be called upon to understand complex environmental
issues, assess risk, evaluate proposed environmental plans and
understand how individual decisions affect the environment at local and
global scales. Creating a scientifically informed citizenry requires a
concerted, systemic approach to environmental education ...'' In the
private sector, business leaders also increasingly believe that an
environmentally literate workforce is critical to their long-term
success. They recognize that better, more efficient environmental
practices improve the bottom line and help position their companies for
the future.
Climate change, conservation of precious natural resources,
maintaining clean air and water, and other environmental challenges are
pressing and complex issues that influence human health, economic
development and national security. Finding widespread agreement about
the specific steps we need to take to solve these problems is
difficult. Environmental education will help ensure that our Nation's
children have the knowledge and skills necessary to address these
critical issues. In short, the environment should be an important part
of the curriculum in our schools.
I know my constituents in Rhode Island, as well as the residents of
other States, want their children to be environmentally literate and
have a connection with the natural world. I am proud to sponsor this
important legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to
enact the No Child Left Inside Act of 2007. I ask unanimous consent
that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

S. 1981

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 ``No Child
Left Inside Act of 2007''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. References.
Sec. 3. Authorization of appropriations.

TITLE I--ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PLANS

Sec. 101. Development, approval, and implementation of State
environmental literacy plans.

[[Page S10818]]

TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAMS

Sec. 201. Environmental education.

TITLE III--ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM TO HELP BUILD NATIONAL
CAPACITY

Sec. 301. Environmental education grant program to help build national
capacity.

TITLE IV--ELIGIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND FIELD-BASED
LEARNING ACTIVITIES UNDER EXISTING GRANT AND FUNDING PROGRAMS

Sec. 401. Promotion of field-based learning.
Sec. 402. Environmental education as an authorized program in the fund
for the improvement of education.

TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS

Sec. 501. Department of Education Organization Act.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Except as otherwise specifically provided, whenever in this
Act an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an
amendment to, or a repeal of, a section or other provision,
the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or
other provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.).

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) Authorization.--There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out section 5622(g) and part E of title II of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, $100,000,000
for fiscal year 2008 and each of the 4 succeeding fiscal
years.
(b) Distribution.--With respect to any amount appropriated
under subsection (a) for a fiscal year--
(1) not more than 70 percent of such amount shall be used
to carry out section 5622(g) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 for such fiscal year; and
(2) not less than 30 percent of such amount shall be used
to carry out part E of title II of such Act for such fiscal
year.

TITLE I--ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PLANS

SEC. 101. DEVELOPMENT, APPROVAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE
ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PLANS.

Part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) is amended by
adding at the end the following:

``Subpart 22--Environmental Literacy Plans

``SEC. 5621. ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PLAN REQUIREMENTS.

``In order for any State educational agency or a local
educational agency served by a State educational agency to
receive grant funds, either directly or through participation
in a partnership with a recipient of grant funds, under this
subpart or part E of title II, the State educational agency
shall meet the requirements regarding an environmental
literacy plan under section 5622.

``SEC. 5622. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY PLANS.

``(a) Submission of Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2007, a State
educational agency subject to the requirements of section
5621 shall, in consultation with State environmental
agencies, State natural resource agencies, and with input
from the public--
``(A) submit an environmental literacy plan for
kindergarten through grade 12 to the Secretary for peer
review and approval that will ensure that elementary and
secondary school students in the State are environmentally
literate; and
``(B) begin the implementation of such plan in the State.
``(2) Existing plans.--A State may satisfy the requirement
of paragraph (1)(A) by submitting to the Secretary for peer
review an existing State plan that has been developed by or
in cooperation with State environmental organizations, if
such plan complies with this section.
``(b) Plan Objectives.--A State environmental literacy plan
shall meet the following objectives:
``(1) Prepare students to understand, analyze, and address
the major environmental challenges facing the United States.
``(2) Provide field experiences as part of the regular
school curriculum and create programs that contribute to
healthy lifestyles through outdoor recreation and sound
nutrition.
``(3) Create opportunities for enhanced and ongoing
professional development for teachers that improves the
teachers' environmental content knowledge, skill in teaching
about environmental issues, and field-based pedagogical skill
base.
``(c) Contents of Plan.--A State environmental literacy
plan shall include each of the following:
``(1) A description of how the State educational agency
will measure the environmental literacy of students,
including--
``(A) relevant State academic content standards and content
areas regarding environmental education, and courses or
subjects where environmental education instruction will take
place; and
``(B) a description of the relationship of the plan to the
secondary school graduation requirements of the State.
``(2) A description of programs for professional
development for teachers to improve the teachers'--
``(A) environmental content knowledge;
``(B) skill in teaching about environmental issues; and
``(C) field-based pedagogical skills.
``(3) A description of how the State educational agency
will implement the plan, including securing funding and other
necessary support.
``(d) Plan Update.--The State environmental literacy plan
shall be revised or updated by the State educational agency
and submitted to the Secretary not less often than every 5
years or as appropriate to reflect plan modifications.
``(e) Peer Review and Secretarial Approval.--The Secretary
shall--
``(1) establish a peer review process to assist in the
review of State environmental literacy plans;
``(2) appoint individuals to the peer review process who--
``(A) are representative of parents, teachers, State
educational agencies, State environmental agencies, State
natural resource agencies, local educational agencies, and
non-governmental organizations; and
``(B) are familiar with national environmental issues and
the health and educational needs of students;
``(3) approve a State environmental literacy plan within
120 days of the plan's submission unless the Secretary
determines that the State environmental literacy plan does
not meet the requirements of this section;
``(4) immediately notify the State if the Secretary
determines that the State environmental literacy plan does
not meet the requirements of this section, and state the
reasons for such determination;
``(5) not decline to approve a State environmental literacy
plan before--
``(A) offering the State an opportunity to revise the State
environmental literacy plan;
``(B) providing technical assistance in order to assist the
State to meet the requirements of this section; and
``(C) providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing;
and
``(6) have the authority to decline to approve a State
environmental literacy plan for not meeting the requirements
of this part, but shall not have the authority to require a
State, as a condition of approval of the State environmental
literacy plan, to--
``(A) include in, or delete from, such State environmental
literacy plan 1 or more specific elements of the State
academic content standards under section 1111(b)(1); or
``(B) use specific academic assessment instruments or
items.
``(f) State Revisions.--The State educational agency shall
have the opportunity to revise a State environmental literacy
plan if such revision is necessary to satisfy the
requirements of this section.
``(g) Grants for Implementation.--
``(1) Program authorized.--From amounts appropriated for
this subsection, the Secretary shall award grants, through
allotments in accordance with the regulations described in
paragraph (2), to States to enable the States to award
subgrants, on a competitive basis, to local educational
agencies and eligible partnerships (as such term is defined
in section 2502) to support the implementation of the State
environmental literacy plan.
``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations implementing the grant program under paragraph
(1), which regulations shall include the development of an
allotment formula that best achieves the purposes of this
subpart.
``(3) Administrative expenses.--A State receiving a grant
under this subsection may use not more than 2.5 percent of
the grant funds for administrative expenses.
``(h) Reporting.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after approval of
a State environmental literacy plan, and every 2 years
thereafter, the chief executive officer of the State, in
cooperation with the State educational agency, shall submit
to the Secretary a report on the implementation of the State
plan.
``(2) Report requirements.--The report required by this
subsection shall be--
``(A) in the form specified by the Secretary;
``(B) based on the State's ongoing evaluation activities;
and
``(C) made readily available to the public.''.

TITLE II--ESTABLISHMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION.

Title II (20 U.S.C. 6601 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:

``PART E--ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT GRANT
PROGRAM

``SEC. 2501. PURPOSE.

``The purpose of this part is to ensure the academic
achievement of students in environmental literacy through the
professional development of teachers and educators.

``SEC. 2502. GRANTS FOR ENHANCING EDUCATION THROUGH
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION.

``(a) Definition of Eligible Partnership.--In this section,
the term `eligible partnership' means a partnership that--
``(1) shall include a local educational agency; and
``(2) may include--
``(A) the teacher training department of an institution of
higher education;

[[Page S10819]]

``(B) the environmental department of an institution of
higher education;
``(C) another local educational agency, a public charter
school, a public elementary school or secondary school, or a
consortium of such schools;
``(D) a State environmental or natural resource management
agency or a local environmental or natural resource
management agency; or
``(E) a nonprofit or for-profit organization of
demonstrated effectiveness in improving the quality of
environmental education teachers.
``(b) Grants Authorized.--
``(1) Program authorized.--From amounts appropriated for
this subsection, the Secretary shall award grants, through
allotments in accordance with the regulations described in
paragraph (2), to States to enable the States to award
subgrants under subsection (c).
``(2) Regulations.--The Secretary shall promulgate
regulations implementing the grant program under paragraph
(1), which regulations shall include the development of an
allotment formula that best achieves the purposes of this
subpart.
``(3) Administrative expenses.--A State receiving a grant
under this subsection may use not more than 2.5 percent of
the grant funds for administrative expenses.
``(c) Subgrants Authorized.--
``(1) Subgrants to eligible partnerships.--From amounts
made available to a State educational agency under subsection
(b)(1), the State educational agency shall award subgrants,
on a competitive basis, to eligible partnerships to enable
the eligible partnerships to carry out the authorized
activities described in subsection (d) consistent with the
approved State environmental literacy plan.
``(2) Duration.--The State educational agency shall award
each subgrant under this part for a period of not more than 3
years beginning on the date of approval of the State's
environmental literacy plan under section 5622.
``(3) Supplement, not supplant.--Funds provided to an
eligible partnership under this part shall be used to
supplement, and not supplant, funds that would otherwise be
used for activities authorized under this part.
``(d) Application Requirements.--
``(1) In general.--Each eligible partnership desiring a
subgrant under this part shall submit an application to the
State educational agency, at such time, in such manner, and
accompanied by such information as the State educational
agency may require.
``(2) Contents.--Each application submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include--
``(A) the results of a comprehensive assessment of the
teacher quality and professional development needs, with
respect to the teaching and learning of environmental
content;
``(B) a description of how the activities to be carried out
by the eligible partnership--
``(i) where applicable, will be aligned with challenging
State academic content standards and student academic
achievement standards in environmental education; and
``(ii) will advance the teaching of interdisciplinary
courses that integrate the study of natural, social, and
economic systems and that include strong field components in
which students have the opportunity to directly experience
nature;
``(C) an explanation of how the activities to be carried
out by the eligible partnership are expected to improve
student academic achievement and strengthen the quality of
environmental instruction;
``(D) a description of how the activities to be carried out
by the eligible partnership will ensure that teachers are
trained in the use of field-based and service learning to
enable the teachers--
``(i) to use the local environment and community as a
resource; and
``(ii) to enhance student understanding of the environment
and academic achievement;
``(E) a description of--
``(i) how the eligible partnership will carry out the
authorized activities described in subsection (d); and
``(ii) the eligible partnership's evaluation and
accountability plan described in subsection (e); and
``(F) a description of how the eligible partnership will
continue the activities funded under this part after the
grant period has expired.
``(e) Authorized Activities.--An eligible partnership shall
use the subgrant funds provided under this part for 1 or more
of the following activities related to elementary schools or
secondary schools:
``(1) Improving the environmental content knowledge of
teachers.
``(2) Improving teachers' skills in teaching about
environmental issues.
``(3) Improving the field-based pedagogical skill base of
all teachers.
``(4) Providing professional development for teachers that
encourages the utilization of outdoor facilities.
``(5) Establishing and operating programs to bring teachers
into contact with working professionals in environmental
fields to expand such teachers' subject matter knowledge of,
and research in, environmental issues.
``(6) Creating initiatives that seek to incorporate
environmental education within teacher training programs or
accreditation standards consistent with the State
environmental literacy plan under section 5622.
``(7) Conducting and operating model environmental
education programs that utilize outdoor field investigations
for students to directly experience nature.
``(f) Evaluation and Accountability Plan.--
``(1) In general.--Each eligible partnership receiving a
subgrant under this part shall develop an evaluation and
accountability plan for activities assisted under this part
that includes rigorous objectives that measure the impact of
the activities.
``(2) Contents.--The plan developed under paragraph (1)
shall include measurable objectives to increase the number of
teachers who participate in environmental education content-
based professional development activities.
``(g) Report.--Each eligible partnership receiving a
subgrant under this part shall report annually to the State
educational agency regarding the eligible partnership's
progress in meeting the objectives described in the
accountability plan of the eligible partnership under
subsection (f).''.

TITLE III--ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM TO HELP BUILD NATIONAL
CAPACITY

SEC. 301. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION GRANT PROGRAM TO HELP BUILD
NATIONAL CAPACITY.

Part D of title V (20 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.) (as amended by
section 101) is further amended by adding at the end the
following:

``Subpart 23--Environmental Education Grant Program

``SEC. 5631. PURPOSE.

``The purpose of this subpart is to prepare children to
understand and address major environmental challenges facing
the United States and strengthen environmental education as
an integral part of the elementary school and secondary
school curriculum.

``SEC. 5632. GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

``(a) Definition of Eligible Entity.--The term `eligible
entity' means a nonprofit organization, State educational
agency, local educational agency, or institution of higher
education, that has demonstrated expertise and experience in
the development of the institutional, financial,
intellectual, or policy resources needed to help the field of
environmental education become more effective and widely
practiced.
``(b) Grants Authorized.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary, acting through the
Director of Environmental Education, is authorized to award
grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to
enable the eligible entities to carry out the activities
under this section.
``(2) Duration.--The Secretary shall award each grant under
this subpart for a period of not less than 1 year and not
more than 3 years.

``SEC. 5633. APPLICATIONS.

``Each eligible entity desiring a grant under this subpart
shall submit to the Secretary an application that contains--
``(1) a plan to initiate, expand, or improve environmental
education programs in order to make progress toward meeting
State standards for environmental learning; and
``(2) an evaluation and accountability plan for activities
assisted under this subpart that includes rigorous objectives
that measure the impact of activities funded under this
subpart.

``SEC. 5634. USE OF FUNDS.

``Grant funds made available under this subpart shall be
used for 1 or more of the following:
``(1) Developing and implementing challenging State
environmental education academic content standards, student
academic achievement standards, and State curriculum
frameworks.
``(2) Replicating or disseminating information about proven
and tested model environmental education programs that--
``(A) use the environment as an integrating theme or
content throughout the curriculum; or
``(B) provide integrated, interdisciplinary instruction
about natural, social, and economic systems along with field
experience that provides students with opportunities to
directly experience nature in ways designed to improve
students' overall academic performance, personal health
(including addressing child obesity issues), or their
understanding of nature.
``(3) Developing and implementing new policy approaches to
advancing environmental education at the State and national
level.
``(4) Conducting studies of national significance that--
``(A) provide a comprehensive, systematic, and formal
assessment of the state of environmental education in the
United States;
``(B) evaluate the effectiveness of teaching environmental
education as a separate subject, and as an integrating
concept or theme; or
``(C) evaluate the effectiveness of using environmental
education in helping students improve their assessment scores
in mathematics, reading or language arts, and the other core
academic subjects.
``(5) Executing projects that advance widespread State and
local educational agency adoption and use of environmental
education content standards.
``(6) Planning and initiating new national or State sources
of environmental education funding.

``SEC. 5635. REPORTS.

``(a) Eligible Entity Report.--In order to continue
receiving grant funds under this subpart after the first year
of a multiyear

[[Page S10820]]

grant under this subpart, the eligible entity shall submit to
the Secretary an annual report that--
``(1) describes the activities assisted under this subpart
that were conducted during the preceding year;
``(2) demonstrates that progress has been made in helping
schools to meet State standards for environmental education;
and
``(3) describes the results of the eligible entity's
evaluation and accountability plan.
``(b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of the No Child Left Inside Act of 2007,
the Secretary shall submit a report to Congress that--
``(1) describes the programs assisted under this subpart;
``(2) documents the success of such programs in improving
national and State environmental education capacity; and
``(3) makes such recommendations as the Secretary
determines appropriate for the continuation and improvement
of the programs assisted under this subpart.

``SEC. 5636. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.

``(a) Federal Share.--The Federal share under this subpart
shall not exceed--
``(1) 90 percent of the total cost of a program assisted
under this subpart for the first year for which the program
receives assistance under this subpart; and
``(2) 75 percent of such cost for the second and each
subsequent such year.
``(b) Administrative Expenses.--Not more than 7.5 percent
of the grant funds made available to a nonprofit
organization, State educational agency, local educational
agency, or institution of higher education under this subpart
for any fiscal year may be used for administrative expenses.
``(c) Availability of Funds.--Amounts made available to the
Secretary to carry out this subpart shall remain available
until expended.

``SEC. 5637. SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT.

``Funds made available under this subpart shall be used to
supplement, and not supplant, any other Federal, State, or
local funds available for environmental education
activities.''.

TITLE IV--ELIGIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND FIELD-BASED
LEARNING ACTIVITIES UNDER EXISTING GRANT AND FUNDING PROGRAMS

SEC. 401. PROMOTION OF FIELD-BASED LEARNING.

(a) State Use of Funds.--Section 2113(c) (20 U.S.C.
6613(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (10), by inserting ``field-based learning,
service learning, outdoor experiential learning,'' after
``peer networks,''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(19) Encouraging and supporting the training of teachers
and administrators to incorporate field-based learning,
service learning, and outdoor experiential learning into the
curricula and instruction.''.
(b) Local Use of Funds.--Section 2123(a)(3)(B) (20 U.S.C.
6623(a)(3)(B)) is amended--
(1) in clause (iv), by striking ``and'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in clause (v), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(vi) provide training on how to integrate field-based
learning, service learning, and outdoor experiential learning
into the curricula and instruction.''.

SEC. 402. ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AS AN AUTHORIZED PROGRAM IN
THE FUND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF EDUCATION.

Section 5411(b) (20 U.S.C. 7243(b)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (10); and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) Activities and programs that advance environmental
education, including interdisciplinary courses that integrate
the study of natural, social, and economic systems and the
use of the environment as an integrating theme for a school
curriculum, as well as field-based learning, service
learning, and outdoor experiential learning.''.

TITLE V--AMENDMENTS TO OTHER LAWS

SEC. 501. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ORGANIZATION ACT.

(a) Office of Environmental Education.--Title II of the
Department of Education Organization Act (20 U.S.C. 3411 et
seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 221. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION.

``(a) Office of Environmental Education.--There shall be in
the Department an Office of Environmental Education (referred
to in this section as `the Office').
``(b) Director.--
``(1) Appointment and reporting.--The Office shall be
headed by a Director of Environmental Education (in this
section referred to as the `Director'), who shall be
appointed by the Secretary.
``(2) Duties.--The Director shall--
``(A) develop a national plan for kindergarten through
grade 12 environmental education and coordinate the resulting
implementation process for the plan;
``(B) coordinate the development of voluntary national
standards and a national model curriculum;
``(C) administer the environmental education grant program
under subpart 23 of part D of title V of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965;
``(D) administer the environmental education professional
development grant program under part E of title II of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; and
``(E) work in partnership with education activities at the
Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, the Department of the Interior,
and the National Science Foundation to advance kindergarten
through grade 12 environmental education.''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of contents in section 1
of the Department of Education Organization Act (20 U.S.C.
3401 note) is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 220 the following new item:

``Sec. 221. Office of Environmental Education.''.
____

No Child Left Inside,

August 1, 2007.
Hon. Jack Reed,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S.
Senate,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 20510-3903
Dear Senator Reed: As members of the No Child Left Inside
Coalition, we are writing to commend you for introducing the
No Child Left Inside Act of 2007, and we offer our support
for environmental education in the reauthorization of the No
Child Left Behind Act. While we applaud the thrust of the No
Child Left Behind Act, we believe adjustments are needed to
improve environmental consciousness in schools across the
country.
Our coalition comprises over two dozen national and
regional education and environmental organizations. Together
we represent more than 7 million citizens who are passionate
about the inclusion of environmental education in students'
learning.
The country is facing a host of complicated environmental
challenges, but we are not providing an adequate
environmental education to our young people. Indeed, over the
past few years many schools have cut back on instruction
related to the environment, canceling field trips and
meaningful outdoor explorations. Three decades of growth in
environmental education has been hampered by No Child Left
Behind, even as the nation's environmental issues have grown
increasingly complex.
We believe it is critical to reverse this trend and provide
children with a solid understanding of the planet and the
problems it faces. As they will be called upon throughout
their lives to sort out various environmental claims and
issues impacting their jobs, health, security and
transportation, our children need to have the tools to be
able to make wise decisions and choices.
To that end, we support several changes to the No Child
Left Behind Act that would emphasize the importance of
environmental education:
New funding should be available to help states develop
rigorous environmental education standards and improve
teacher training.
To be eligible for new environmental education funding,
states would be required to develop plans to ensure that
their students are environmentally literate.
These changes will provide the incentives and support
school systems need to offer more and better environmental
instruction. The rewards are likely to be great. We know from
past research that students who take part in environmental
education programs become more engaged with school and do
better on standardized tests.
Our coalition urges that the reauthorization of the No
Child Left Behind Act not only improve educational offerings
but provide new support for environmental education.
Once again, we thank you for your leadership on this
important issue.
If you would like additional information, please contact
Don Baugh, representing the No Child Left Inside Coalition.
Sincerely,
Pam Gluck, Executive Director, American Trails; Andrew J.
Falender, Executive Director, Appalachian Mountain
Club; Jen Levy, Executive Director, Association of
Nature Center Administrators; Steve Olson, Director of
Government Affairs, Association of Zoos and Aquariums;
Lori Whalen, Director of Education, Back to Natives
Restoration; William C. Baker, President, Chesapeake
Bay Foundation; Martin Blank, Staff Director, Coalition
for Community Schools; Josetta Hawthorne, Executive
Director, Council for Environmental Education; Kathleen
Rogers, President, Earth Day Network; Vince Meldrum,
President, Earth Force, Inc.; Mark Gold, President,
Heal the Bay; Ed Pembleton, Director, Leopold Education
Project; Laura A. Johnson, President, Mass Audubon; Tim
Merriman, Ph.D., Executive Director, National
Association of Interpretation; Judy Braus, Senior Vice
President for Education and Centers, National Audubon
Society; Joel Packer, Director, Education Policy and
Practice, National Education Association; Lori
Arguelles, President and CEO, National Marine Sanctuary
Foundation; John Thorner, Executive Director, National
Recreation and Park Association; Jodi Peterson,
Assistant Executive Director, National Science Teachers
Association; Nelda Brown, Executive Director, National
Service-Learning Partnership; Larry Schweiger,
President & CEO, National Wildlife

[[Page S10821]]

Federation; Brian Day, Executive Director, North
American Association for Environmental Education;
Howard K. Vincent, President and CEO, Pheasants Forever
and Quail Forever; Kathy McGlauflin, Senior Vice
President of Education and Director, Project Learning
Tree; Shareen Knowlton, President, Rhode Island
Environmental Education Association; Jack Mulvena,
Executive Director, Rhode Island Zoological Society
Roger Williams Park Zoo; David Lewis, Executive
Director, Save San Francisco Bay Association (Save The
Bay); H. Curtis Spalding, Executive Director, Save The
Bay; Anthony D. Cortese, President, Second Nature;
Martin LeBlanc, National Youth Education Director,
Sierra Club; Lawrence A. Selzer, President & CEO, The
Conservation Fund; Bill Mott, Director, The Ocean
Project; Maribeth Oakes, Director, The Wilderness
Society National Wildlife Refuge Program; John F.
Calvelli, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs,
Wildlife Conservation Society; Steven A. Culbertson,
President & CEO, Youth Service America.
______

BY Mr. SANDERS (for himself and Mr. Leahy):
S. 1982. A bill to provide for the establishment of the United States
Employee Ownership Bank, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am introducing today with Senator Leahy
the U.S. Employee Ownership Bank Act.
At a time when the U.S. has lost over 3 million manufacturing jobs;
at a time when we are on the cusp of losing millions of high-paying
information technology jobs, this legislation would begin to reverse
that trend by providing employees with the resources they need to
purchase their own businesses through Employee Stock Ownership Plans
and Eligible Worker Owned Cooperatives.
Specifically, this legislation would authorize $100 million to create
a U.S. Employee Ownership Bank within the Department of Treasury to
provide loans, loan guarantees, technical assistance, and grants to
expand employee ownership throughout the country.
Why is it so important for the Senate to provide incentives to expand
employee ownership in this country? The answer is simple: employee
ownership is one of the keys to creating a sustainable economy with
jobs that pay a living wage.
This legislation has the strong support of the ESOP Association, a
nonprofit organization representing approximately 2,500 Employee Stock
Ownership Plans throughout the country. Let me quote from a letter they
recently sent to my office:

Your legislation is a modest first step in awakening our
Government to the fact that in the 21st Century the inclusion
of employees as owners of the companies where they work in a
meaningful manner should be a key component of any national
competitiveness program. If the Senate adopts your
legislation, and it eventually becomes law, we assure you
that the ESOP community will work constructively to ensure
that the loan and grant program you propose works effectively
to benefit the employee owners, the employee owned companies,
and our American economy.
Every day we read in the papers about plants that are being moved to
China, Mexico, and a number of other low wage countries. Since a number
of these factories were making profits, shutting them down was
unnecessary and could have been avoided by selling these factories to
their employees through ESOPs or worker-owned cooperatives.
Since 2000, the U.S. manufacturing sector has lost 3.2 million
decent-paying jobs. Put another way, since George W. Bush has been
elected President, this country has seen one out of every six factory
jobs disappear.
In addition, the Associated Press recently reported about a study by
Moody's which found that ``16 percent of the nation's 379 metropolitan
areas are in recession, reflecting primarily the troubles in
manufacturing.''
In other words, about 16 percent of the biggest cities in this
country are experiencing a recession, largely due to the loss of
decent-paying manufacturing jobs. I suspect that this problem is even
worse in rural areas. In my small State of Vermont, we have lost about
20 percent of our manufacturing jobs over the past 6 years representing
over 10,000 jobs.
Let me just give you an example of some of the jobs that have been
lost. From 2001-2006 the United States of America experienced the loss
of 42 percent of our communication equipment jobs; 37 percent of our
semiconductor and electronic component manufacturing jobs; 43 percent
of our textile jobs; and about half of our apparel jobs.
Not only are we losing decent-paying manufacturing jobs, we are also
losing high-paying information technology jobs as well.
While the loss of manufacturing jobs has been well-documented, it may
come as a surprise to some that from January of 2001 to January of
2006, the information sector of the U.S. economy lost over 640,000 jobs
or more than 17 percent of its workforce.
Unfortunately, the worst may be yet to come. Alan Blinder, an
economist at Princeton and the former Vice Chairman of the Federal
Reserve has recently concluded that between 30 and 40 million jobs in
the United States are vulnerable to overseas outsourcing over the next
10 to 20 years.
Would expanding employee ownership be a cure-all for what ails the
manufacturing and information technology sectors? Of course it
wouldn't. But I strongly believe that employee ownership can and should
be one of the central strategies in combating the outsourcing of
American jobs. Simply put, workers who are also owners will not move
their own jobs to China.
Today, there are some 11,000 Employee Stock Ownership Plans, hundreds
of worker owned cooperatives, and thousands of other companies with
some form of employee ownership, and most of them are thriving.
In fact, employee ownership has been proven to increase employment,
increase productivity, increase sales, and increase wages in the United
States. According to a Rutgers University study, broad based employee
ownership boosts company productivity by 4 percent shareholder return
by 2 percent and profits by 14 percent. Similar studies have shown that
ESOP companies paid their hourly workers between 5 to 12 percent better
than non-ESOP companies.
Yet, despite the important role that worker ownership can play in
revitalizing our economy, the Federal Government has failed to commit
the resources needed to allow employee ownership to realize its true
potential, and that is why this legislation is so important.
When I was the Ranking Member of the Financial Institutions and
Consumer Credit Subcommittee in the House of Representatives, I was
able to hold a hearing on this issue nearly 4 years ago.
During the hearing, a number of witnesses told the Subcommittee that
if Federal loans, loan guarantees, technical assistance and grants were
made available for the expansion of employee ownership, factories that
are now closed and abandoned would be open for business today.
For example, the Subcommittee heard from Larry Owenby who worked at
the RFS Ecusta mill in North Carolina for 30 years until one day, the
company decided to shut down.
Other witnesses talked about factories that were closed in
Mississippi, Alabama and Ohio. All of the witnesses testified in
support of Federal loans, loan guarantees and technical assistance for
the expansion of employee ownership. In fact, if this assistance had
been around before the plants had closed, many of them would still be
employed today as employee owners.
The final point that I want to make is that the Federal Government,
through the U.S. Export-Import Bank, is already providing billions of
dollars in loans, loan guarantees and other assistance to large, multi-
national companies, such as Boeing, General Electric, and Halliburton.
Many of these companies happen to be some of the largest job cutters in
America, as they have moved hundreds of thousands of jobs to China,
India, and Mexico.
In my opinion, instead of providing corporate welfare to large
corporations that are throwing American workers out on the street as
they move overseas, we should be providing employees with the tools
they need to create and retain jobs right here in the United States
through the expansion of employee ownership.
I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

[[Page S10822]]

____________________