[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16965-16974]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Bingaman, Ms. 
        Cantwell, Mrs. Lincoln, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Harkin, 
        Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Dorgan, Mr. Enzi, and Mr. 
        Pryor):
  S. 1673. A bill to facilitate the export of United States 
agricultural products to Cuba as authorized by the Trade Sanctions 
Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, to remove impediments to the 
export to Cuba of medical devices and medicines, to allow travel to 
Cuba by United States citizens, to establish an agricultural export 
promotion program with respect to Cuba, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, today I am proud to introduce legislation 
with Senator Mike Crapo, House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, 
and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson to help open a promising market to 
American exports. That market is Cuba.
  For too long, we have maintained ideologically driven restrictions 
that have undermined our export competitiveness in a market 90 miles 
away from us.
  Just beyond our shoreline, our trading partners--especially Canada 
and China--are making multi billion-dollar investments in a Cuban 
economy that is growing at a rate of 7 to 12 percent per year. But the 
United States just stands by while these and other countries capitalize 
on opportunities in our own backyard.
  Our economic policy toward Cuba simply is not working. This bill 
changes that.
  The greatest opportunities exist in Cuba's agriculture sector. When 
Congress passed legislation allowing food and medicine sales to Cuba in 
2000, some people said Cuba would never buy. Fidel Castro himself 
predicted that Cuba would buy ``not one grain'' from the United States.
  But Mr. Castro was wrong. Agricultural sales happened. In 2004 alone, 
Cubans bought more than $375 million in American agricultural products. 
And, today, nearly every state in the union wants to get into the 
largest agriculture market in the Caribbean.
  I have worked tirelessly to market Montana's high quality agriculture 
products, and it has paid off. In 2003, I inked a $10 million deal with 
Cuba. After we completed that deal, I went back to Havana and signed 
another deal--for $15 million. We have sent Montana wheat, beans and 
peas to Cuba, and that is just the beginning.
  But it has not been easy. In 2005, the Treasury Department issued a 
rule to undermine the will of Congress. In landmark legislation, 
Congress in 2000 facilitated agriculture exports to Cuba by authorizing 
the use of cash basis sales. But the Treasury rule made such 
transactions impossible. Instead, sellers had to resort to foreign 
letters of credit, which are time-consuming, complicated, and 
expensive, especially for smaller exporters.
  The Treasury rule stunted what had been meteoric growth in American 
agriculture exports to Cuba. This rule flies in the face of the law, 
and it will not stand.
  Today's bill overturns the Treasury rule. It clarifies that not only 
do we intend to let these cash basis sales go forward, we mean to 
expand and promote them. This bill also ensures that exporters and 
commodity groups looking to get into the Cuban market get help from the 
Department of Agriculture. And it would require our Agriculture 
Department to promote American agricultural exports for Cuba.
  Increased agriculture sales will allow Cubans to become familiar with 
more and more American branded food products. But a little-known 
provision of U.S. law--known as section 211--invites Cuba to withhold 
trademark protection from these and other American food exports. 
Today's bill also addresses that problem.
  Section 211 bars U.S. courts from hearing claims of foreign nationals 
to trademarks similar to or associated with expropriated properties. It 
also forbids the United States from allowing foreign nationals to 
register or renew such trademark rights. In other words, it denies 
trademark protection to Cuban assets. If we are not going to recognize 
Cuban brands, why should Cuba, in the future, recognize American 
brands?
  The World Trade Organization has already struck down section 211 as 
inconsistent with U.S. international trade obligations. It is time for 
this Congress to do the same. My bill repeals this wrong-headed and 
WTO-inconsistent provision. It ensures the continued security of 
thousands of American-owned trademarks already registered in Cuba.
  I am a big proponent of getting American food products into Cuba. But 
I also fundamentally believe that we should never use food and medicine 
as a weapon against a people, no matter what we think of their 
government.
  Many of my colleagues agree with me on this. This is why Congress, in 
the 1992 Cuban Democracy Act, authorized medicine and medical supplies 
sales to Cuba. But, at that time, we didn't get it quite right. We 
passed a law with

[[Page 16966]]

good intent but loaded it up with so many restrictions that we have 
made medical sales to Cuba more difficult than medical sales to Iran or 
North Korea.
  My bill will correct this lopsided and inhumane policy. It will allow 
Cubans access to our medicines and medical products--which are the best 
money can buy--on the same terms that we offer to other regimes. There 
is no sound reason to deny our products to our Cuban neighbors but 
allow such sales to Iran and North Korea.
  I have taken Montana farmers and ranchers to Cuba to explore export 
opportunities. But such opportunities are rare because our government, 
with limited exceptions, does not permit travel to Cuba. And those 
exceptions are so riddled with red tape as to discourage applicants 
from making use of them.
  Many Americans are ready and willing to travel to Cuba, and not just 
to make agriculture sales. Religious organizations have deep roots on 
the island--since before the Castro government. They are a lifeline, 
bringing hope, help, and brotherhood to their counterparts in Cuba. 
American academics and professionals engage in thoughtful exchanges of 
research and ideas. American students visit with Cuban students, and 
they learn lessons a teacher cannot imbue.
  Nearly everyone in Cuba has a dear friend or relative living in the 
United States. Tens of thousands of Cubans who found their way to 
America save their hard earned dollars on frequent trips home, their 
bags packed with medicine, vitamins, and clothing.
  Rather than encourage these meaningful contacts between Cubans and 
Americans, our government stifles our interaction. Rather than unite 
the Cuban family, our government seeks to divide it further.
  Americans do not benefit from this policy. The Cuban people do not 
benefit from this policy. Only those who seek to keep Americans and 
Cubans apart benefit from our misguided policy of isolation.
  It is time to reach out to the Cuban people. It is time to restore 
Americans' fundamental right to travel anywhere they want. It is time 
to lift the travel ban.
  I am proud of our bill. It spells out the right policy during this 
fundamental transition in Cuba. It helps farmers and ranchers in 
Montana and elsewhere seek opportunities in a nearby market. And it 
affords our citizens the opportunity to spread American generosity, 
assistance, and values to Cuba.
  I look forward to working with Senator Crapo, Chairman Rangel, 
Congresswoman Emerson, and others to put our trade relationship with 
Cuba on the right path.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bunning, Mr. 
        Carper, Mr. Brown, Mr. Casey, and Ms. Stabenow):
  S. 1677. A bill to amend the Exchange Rates and International 
Economic Coordination Act of 1988 and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Currency Reform and 
Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 on behalf of myself, Senator 
Shelby, Senator Bayh, Senator Carper, Senator Brown, and Senator Casey.
  Nearly two decades ago, the Senate Banking Committee enacted 
legislation which required the Treasury Department to identify 
countries that manipulate their currency for purposes of gaining an 
unfair competitive trade advantage and to take prompt action to 
eliminate the unfair trade advantage when manipulation is found.
  One of the very first actions that I undertook as chairman-elect of 
the Senate Banking Committee in December 2006 was to write a letter 
with then-Chairman Shelby to the Treasury Secretary about the report 
required under this legislation, the International Economic and 
Exchange Rate Policy Report and the inaugural U.S.-China strategic 
economic dialogue, SED. In that letter, we expressed our concern that 
the Treasury Department had not cited China, and potentially other 
nations, as currency manipulators.
  At one of the very first hearings I held as chairman, in January 
2007, Treasury Secretary Paulson provided his first congressional 
testimony since his confirmation, on the SED and the exchange rate 
report. At that hearing, Secretary Paulson testified that China did not 
meet the technical requirement for designation as a currency 
manipulator and that the SED is the ``best chance to get some progress 
[on the currency issue].''
  Senator Shelby and I wrote to Secretary Paulson in advance of the 
most recent exchange rate report and the May SED urging him to consider 
steps beyond dialogue to eliminate the unfair trade advantage resulting 
from China's ongoing currency manipulation and discriminatory market 
access practices. But instead of taking action, the Treasury Department 
once again chose not to cite China as a currency manipulator in its 
latest report to the Senate Banking Committee, despite acknowledging 
``heavy foreign exchange market intervention by China's central bank to 
manage the currency tightly.''
  Secretary Paulson's efforts to engage the Chinese through dialogue 
are commendable, but after two meetings of the strategic economic 
dialogue, numerous congressional hearings, and the shortcomings of the 
most recent exchange rate reports, it is clear that dialogue alone is 
not enough to make progress and legislative action is needed.
  Therefore, Senator Shelby and I are today introducing the Currency 
Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 which will provide the 
Treasury Department and Congress new, tough authority to recognize and 
remedy currency manipulation without ambiguity or delay.
  Under current law, Treasury claims that no countries meet the 
technical finding of intent to manipulate their currencies. Treasury 
reiterated this point in its most recent exchange rate report, stating:

       The Department of the Treasury concluded that, although the 
     Chinese currency is undervalued, China did not meet the 
     technical requirements for designation under the terms of 
     Section 3004 of the Act during the period under 
     consideration. Treasury was unable to determine that China's 
     exchange rate policy was carried out for the purpose of 
     preventing effective balance of payments adjustment or 
     gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade.

  The Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 requires 
a Treasury designation of currency manipulation based on objective 
data, and without regard to subjective factors such as purpose or 
intent, removing a technicality that the Treasury Department has been 
using to defend its inaction.
  Once currency manipulation is found, the bill requires the Treasury 
Department to submit a detailed plan of action to the Congress within 
30 days of such finding. The plan of action sets specific timeframes 
and benchmarks, with the goal of remedying the manipulation. The bill 
also requires the Treasury to initiate both bilateral and multilateral 
negotiations, including immediate IMF consultations and to use the 
Treasury's voice and vote at the IMF to address the manipulation.
  Our bill also provides new authority for the Treasury to file a WTO 
article XV case to remedy currency manipulation if the goals and 
benchmarks for progress are not met within 9 months of designation.
  If the Treasury continues to avoid designating countries as currency 
manipulators, our bill creates a new process by which Congress, led by 
either the Senate Banking or House Financial Services Committee, can 
originate a joint resolution of disapproval of the Treasury's inaction 
and provides for an expedited process for such a motion through the 
floors of both Chambers.
  Finally, the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007 
promotes market access for U.S. financial services firms to level the 
playing field for American businesses and to help develop the financial 
sector reform needed to support a freely floating currency in China. It 
also requires the Treasury Department to report on the progress of the 
SED, as well as on opening foreign markets to American financial 
services firms. It is time for American firms to be afforded the same 
open and

[[Page 16967]]

fair treatment abroad that our country provides to foreign firms in the 
United States.
  I am confident that in a free and fair environment American business 
and entrepreneurship will flourish. Our bill will require Treasury to 
assume its responsibility as a referee and will fight to level this 
playing field by identifying and addressing unfair practices and market 
access barriers.
  During the SED events in Beijing, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke 
talked about the market distortions that result from ``an effective 
subsidy that an undervalued currency provides for Chinese firms that 
focus on exporting.'' I agree with Chairman Bernanke that undervalued 
currency is an export subsidy causing market disruptions and fully 
dealing with such subsidies can involve some trade remedies that are 
not within the Banking Committee's jurisdiction and hence not within 
the scope of this bill. But, remedying countervailable export subsidies 
is a policy that could be fully appropriate and supported by myself and 
my colleagues through other legislative proposals.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, a one page summary 
of the bill, and letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1677

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Currency Reform and 
     Financial Markets Access Act of 2007''.

TITLE I--EXCHANGE RATES AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY COORDINATION 
                              ACT OF 1988

     SEC. 101. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

       Section 3003 of the Exchange Rates and International 
     Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5303) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
       (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and 
     inserting a semicolon; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the United States, and other major industrialized 
     countries, should, where appropriate, work together, through 
     bilateral and multilateral discussions and international 
     economic institutions, to ensure that the rate of exchange of 
     the currencies of the major trading nations and the United 
     States dollar--
       ``(A) reflect economic fundamentals and market forces; and
       ``(B) contribute to the growth and balance of the 
     international economy; and
       ``(6) the United States should take all appropriate and 
     necessary measures to ensure that the major trading partners 
     of the United States are not engaged in hidden or unfair 
     subsidies through management of their currency or 
     international exchange rates.''.

     SEC. 102. FAIR CURRENCY.

       (a) In General.--Section 3004(b) of the Exchange Rates and 
     International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 
     U.S.C. 5304(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Bilateral Negotiations.--
       ``(1) Analysis.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     analyze on an annual basis the exchange rate policies of 
     foreign countries, in consultation with the International 
     Monetary Fund, and consider whether any country, regardless 
     of intent, manipulates the rate of exchange between its 
     currency and the United States dollar in a manner that--
       ``(A) prevents effective balance of payments adjustments;
       ``(B) gains an unfair competitive advantage in 
     international trade; or
       ``(C) results in an accumulation of substantial dollar 
     currency reserves.
       ``(2) Determination.--The Secretary shall make an 
     affirmative determination that a country is manipulating its 
     currency and take the action described in paragraphs (3), 
     (4), and (5) with respect to any country the Secretary 
     considers is manipulating its currency as described in 
     paragraph (1), if that country--
       ``(A) has a material global current account surplus; and
       ``(B) has significant bilateral trade surpluses with the 
     United States; and
       ``(C) has engaged in prolonged one-way intervention in the 
     currency markets.
       ``(3) Action.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any country with respect 
     to which the Secretary makes an affirmative determination 
     under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall, not later than 30 
     days after the determination is made, establish a plan of 
     action to remedy the currency manipulation, and submit a 
     report regarding that plan, to the Committee on Banking, 
     Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 
     Financial Services of the House of Representatives.
       ``(B) Benchmarks.--The report described in subparagraph (A) 
     shall include specific benchmarks and timeframes for 
     correcting the currency manipulation.
       ``(4) Initial negotiations.--The Secretary shall initiate, 
     on an expedited basis, bilateral negotiations with each 
     country with respect to which an affirmative determination is 
     made under paragraph (2) for the purpose of ensuring that the 
     country regularly and promptly adjusts the rate of exchange 
     between its currency and the United States dollar to permit 
     effective balance of payment adjustments and to eliminate the 
     unfair competitive advantage.
       ``(5) Coordination with the international monetary fund.--
     The Secretary, within 30 days of the determination made under 
     paragraph (2), shall instruct the Executive Director to the 
     International Monetary Fund to use the voice and vote of the 
     United States, including requesting consultations under 
     Article IV of the Articles of Agreement of the International 
     Monetary Fund, for the purpose of ensuring that each country 
     with respect to which an affirmative determination is made 
     under paragraph (2) regularly and promptly adjusts the rate 
     of exchange between its currency and the United States dollar 
     to permit effective balance of payments adjustments and to 
     eliminate the unfair competitive advantage in trade.
       ``(6) Follow-up report.--Not later than 300 days after an 
     affirmative determination is made under paragraph (2), if the 
     country with respect to which the affirmative determination 
     is made continues to manipulate the rate of exchange between 
     its currency and the United States dollar and the benchmarks 
     in the report required under paragraph (3) have not been met, 
     the Secretary shall initiate action pursuant to the 
     Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
     Settlement of Disputes annexed to the WTO Agreement to 
     address the country's currency manipulation and violations of 
     the country's obligations under article XV of GATT 1994.
       ``(7) Exception.--The Secretary is not required to initiate 
     action in any case in which the President determines that the 
     action will have a serious detrimental impact on the vital 
     economic and security interests of the United States. If the 
     President makes a determination under the preceding sentence, 
     the President shall inform the chairman and the ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 
     Urban Affairs of the Senate and of the Committee on Financial 
     Services of the House of Representatives of the President's 
     determination.''.
       (b) Definitions.--Section 3006 of the Exchange Rates and 
     International Economic Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 
     5306) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) GATT 1994.--The term `GATT 1994' has the meaning 
     given such term in section 2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round 
     Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(1)(B)).
       ``(4) WTO agreement.--The term `WTO Agreement' means the 
     Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization entered 
     into on April 15, 1994.''.

     SEC. 103. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

       Section 3005 of the Exchange Rates and International 
     Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5305) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``In furtherance'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--In furtherance''; and
       (B) by striking the last sentence; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Appearances before the congress.--The Secretary shall 
     appear before the Congress at semi-annual hearings to provide 
     testimony on the reports referred to in paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) before the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban 
     Affairs of the Senate on or about October 15 of each even 
     numbered calendar year and on or about April 15 of each odd 
     numbered calendar year;
       ``(B) before the Committee on Financial Services of the 
     House of Representatives on or about April 15 of each even 
     numbered calendar year and on or about October 15 of each odd 
     numbered calendar year;
       ``(C) before either Committee referred to in subparagraph 
     (A) or (B), upon request of the Chairman, following the 
     scheduled appearance of the Secretary before the other 
     Committee.''.

     SEC. 104. CONGRESSIONAL DETERMINATION OF CURRENCY 
                   MANIPULATION.

       The Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy 
     Coordination Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) is amended 
     by inserting after section 3004 the following:

     ``SEC. 3004A. ACTION BASED ON COMMITTEE RESOLUTION.

       ``(a) In General.--In this section, the term `joint 
     resolution' means only a joint resolution introduced in the 
     period beginning on the date on which the report referred to 
     section 3004(b)(3) of the Exchange Rates and International 
     Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 is received by the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate 
     or the Committee on Financial Services of the House of 
     Representatives and ending 60 days thereafter (excluding days 
     either House of Congress is adjourned for more than

[[Page 16968]]

     3 days during a session of Congress), the matter after the 
     resolving clause of which is as follows: `That Congress 
     disapproves of the determination of the Secretary of the 
     Treasury relating to the finding of currency manipulation as 
     described in section 3004(b) of the Exchange Rates and 
     International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988 in the 
     report relating to ________, submitted on ___________.', with 
     the first blank space being filled with the name of the 
     country (or countries) to which the determination relates and 
     the second blank space being filled with the date the report 
     was submitted.
       ``(b) Procedures for Considering Resolutions.--
       ``(1) Original resolutions.--Resolutions of disapproval 
     shall be original resolutions, which--
       ``(A) in the House of Representatives shall originate from 
     the Committee on Financial Services and, in addition, be 
     referred to the Committee on Rules; and
       ``(B) in the Senate shall originate from the Committee on 
     Banking, Housing, and Urban Affair.
       ``(2) Floor consideration.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     section, the provisions of subsections (d) through (f) of 
     section 152 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192(d) 
     through (f)) (relating to floor consideration of certain 
     resolutions in the House and Senate) apply to a joint 
     resolution of disapproval under this section to the same 
     extent as such subsections apply to joint resolutions under 
     such section 152.
       ``(B) Modification of section 152.--Section 152(f) of the 
     Trade Act of 1974 shall be applied--
       ``(i) by substituting `described in section 3004A of the 
     Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination 
     Act of 1988' for `described in section 152 or 153(a), 
     whichever is applicable,' in paragraph (2); and
       ``(ii) by substituting `a joint resolution described in 
     section 3004A of the Exchange Rates and International 
     Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988' for `a joint 
     resolution described in subsection (a)(2)(B)' in paragraph 
     (3).
       ``(c) Rules of House of Representatives and Senate.--This 
     section is enacted by the Congress--
       ``(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House 
     of Representatives and the Senate, respectively, and as such 
     are deemed a part of the rules of each House, respectively, 
     and such procedures supersede other rules only to the extent 
     that they are inconsistent with such other rules; and
       ``(2) with the full recognition of the constitutional right 
     of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to 
     the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same 
     manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that 
     House.''.

                TITLE II--FINANCIAL REPORTS ACT OF 1988

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Promoting Market Access 
     for Financial Services Act''.

     SEC. 202. REPORT ON FOREIGN TREATMENT OF UNITED STATES 
                   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

       The Financial Reports Act of 1988 (22 U.S.C. 5351 et seq.) 
     is amended--
       (1) in section 3602--
       (A) by striking ``QUADRENNIAL'' and inserting ``ANNUAL'' in 
     the heading; and
       (B) by striking ``not less frequently than every 4 years, 
     beginning December 1, 1990'' and inserting ``beginning July 
     1, 2008, and annually thereafter,'';
       (C) by striking ``to the Congress'' and inserting ``to the 
     Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Financial Services of the House 
     of Representatives'';
       (2) in section 3603--
       (A) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as 
     subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting after subsection (a), the following:
       ``(b) Report on SED.--The Secretary shall include in the 
     initial report required under section 3602 a summary of the 
     results of the most recent US-China Strategic Economic 
     Dialogue (SED) and the results of the SED as it relates to 
     promoting market access for financial institutions. The 
     reports required under section 3602 shall include a progress 
     report on the implementation of any agreements resulting from 
     the SED, a description of the remaining challenges, if any, 
     in improving market access for financial institutions, and a 
     plan, including benchmarks and timeframes, for dealing with 
     the remaining challenges. Each report shall specifically 
     address issues regarding--
       ``(1) foreign investment rules;
       ``(2) the problems of a dual-share stock market;
       ``(3) the openness of the derivatives market;
       ``(4) restrictions on foreign bank branching;
       ``(5) the ability to offer insurance (including innovative 
     products); and
       ``(6) regulatory and procedural transparency.''.

     The Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007--

                             June 12, 2007

       The Dodd-Shelby legislation would take significant new 
     action to recognize and remedy currency manipulation by China 
     and other countries, which has been harming the American 
     economy, hurting our manufacturing base and driving record 
     U.S. trade deficits. The bill also promotes Treasury's role 
     in enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. financial services 
     firms.
       Strengthens Treasury's ability to find currency 
     manipulation: Strengthens the definition of currency 
     manipulation to identify countries that have both a material 
     global current account surplus and a significant bilateral 
     trade surplus with the United States as currency 
     manipulators, without regard to intent.
       Requires Treasury to address and remedy currency 
     manipulation: Requires the Treasury Department to submit a 
     detailed plan of action to the Congress within 30 days of a 
     finding by Treasury of manipulation. The plan of action shall 
     set specific timeframes and benchmarks, with the goal of 
     remedying the manipulation; Requires Treasury to engage in 
     bilateral and multilateral negotiations with countries that 
     manipulate their currency. The Treasury must immediately seek 
     IMF consultations when manipulation is found and requires 
     Treasury to use its voice and vote at the IMF to that end; 
     Provides Treasury the authority to file a WTO Article XV case 
     to remedy currency manipulation if the goals and benchmarks 
     are not met within 9 months.
       Authorizes a Congressional disapproval process: Creates a 
     process by which Congress, led by either the Senate Banking 
     or House Financial Services Committee, can originate a joint 
     resolution of disapproval when Treasury fails to cite 
     manipulation. Provides for an expedited process for such a 
     motion through the floors of both chambers.
       Promotes market access for U.S. financial services firms: 
     Requires Treasury to annually monitor and report to the 
     Senate Banking Committee and the House Financial Services 
     Committee on market access barriers for U.S. financial 
     services firms, to identify challenges, and to develop plans 
     to address those barriers; Requires the Treasury's initial 
     report to include the status of the US-China Strategic 
     Economic Dialogue (SED) as it relates to financial services 
     firms. This would become the only congressionally required 
     report on the progress of the SED.


                                 The Financial Services Forum,

                                                    June 21, 2007.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Dodd: We are writing to applaud the focus you 
     have given to market access in Title II of the Currency 
     Reform and Markets Access Act of 2007. We commend your 
     bipartisan effort to introduce legislation that recognizes 
     the importance of further access for U.S. financial services 
     firms to China's markets.
       The Forum is encouraged by the Senators' interest in the 
     U.S.-China Strategic Economic Dialogue and efforts to remove 
     market access barriers for U.S. financial services firms.
       A more open, modern, and effective financial sector in 
     China is a prerequisite to successfully addressing issues 
     that have complicated the U.S.-China economic relationship 
     such as currency reform and the trade imbalance.
       The fastest way for China to develop the modern financial 
     system it needs to achieve more sustainable economic growth, 
     allow for a more flexible currency, and increase consumer 
     consumption--thereby opening new markets for U.S. products 
     and services--is to import it by opening its financial sector 
     to greater participation by foreign financial services firms.
       We look forward to working with all of Congress in 
     continuing to draw focus and attention to this key issue for 
     economic reform and financial modernization in China and 
     other emerging markets.
           Sincerely,
     Donald L. Evans.
                                  ____



                                     China Currency Coalition,

                                   Washington, DC., June 21, 2007.

China Currency Coalition Welcomes Introduction of Dodd-Shelby Bill as a 
             Helpful Step To Address Currency Manipulation

       (Washington, DC).--The China Currency Coalition (``CCC''), 
     an alliance of industry, agriculture, and worker 
     organizations whose mission is to support U.S. manufacturing, 
     voiced its support of the Dodd-Shelby bill introduced today 
     as a positive development in on-going efforts needed by the 
     United States and the international community to rein in 
     dangerous trade imbalances attributable to currency 
     manipulation.
       ``Enactment of the Dodd-Shelby bill would be a key step 
     forward in addressing the China currency issue,'' said David 
     A. Hartquist, counsel to the CCC. ``The Treasury Department 
     and the International Monetary Fund should make every effort 
     to discourage and correct protracted undervaluation of 
     countries' currencies as a monetary problem,'' he continued, 
     ``and the Dodd-Shelby bill is a significant help in this 
     regard. We appreciate that Chairman Dodd recognizes

[[Page 16969]]

     that additional legislation may be appropriate to address 
     countervailable subsidies resulting from China's currency 
     manipulation.''
       ``At the same time,'' noted Hartquist, ``when a currency is 
     seriously undervalued for a protracted period of time, as 
     China's has been since 1994, there are very damaging effects 
     on trade. It is vitally important that the hybrid nature of 
     this sort of exchange-rate misalignment is acknowledged so 
     that both the negative monetary and trade aspects of such 
     behavior by a country are addressed. That is why the CCC 
     continues to urge passage of the Bunning-Stabenow-Bayh-Snowe 
     bill, S. 796, and its counterpart in the House, the Ryan-
     Hunter bill, H.R. 782. These bills recognize that undervalued 
     exchange-rate misalignment by China or any other country is 
     countervailable prohibited export subsidy under U.S. and 
     international law. The CCC is very grateful to Senators Bayh, 
     Bunning, and Stabenow and to Congressmen Ryan and Hunter for 
     their leadership on this important issue.''
       The China Currency Coalition's co-chairs are AFL-CIO 
     Secretary-Treasurer Richard L. Trumka and Doug Bartlett, 
     Chairman of Bartlett Manufacturing Company, Inc., in Cary, 
     Illinois, and also Chairman of the United States Business & 
     Industry Council. David A. Hartquist is a senior partner at 
     the Washington, D.C. office of Kelley Drye Collier Shannon 
     where he heads the international trade practice.
       For more information on the China Currency Coalition, visit 
     www.chinacurrencycoalition.org.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Conrad, Mr. Smith, Ms. Mikulski, 
        and Mr. Inouye):
  S. 1678. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
ensure more timely access to home health services for Medicare 
beneficiaries under the Medicare program; to the Committee on Finance.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself, Senator 
Conrad, Senator Smith, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Inouye, to 
introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens 
have timely access to home health services under the Medicare Program.
  Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives, 
and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important 
roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural 
and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be 
in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 
1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services 
provided by these health professionals as long as those services are 
within their scope of practice under State law.
  Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered 
nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home 
health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only 
physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for 
Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the 
patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, 
the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the 
patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, 
physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse 
midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, 
this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps 
to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it 
can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home 
health care they need simply because a physician is not readily 
available to sign the form.
  The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician 
assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for 
Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these 
providers may be the only health care professionals available. For 
example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a 
Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only 
health care professional serving the patient's small rural town, and 
the supervising physician was located 60 miles away.
  A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her 
collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. 
As a consequence, the patient experienced a 2-day delay in getting 
needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another 
physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous 
that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute 
facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to 
wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and 
occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health 
agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation 
of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to 
authorize when the patient was in the facility.
  The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure 
that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care they need when 
they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, 
clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home 
health services. Our legislation is supported by the National 
Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, 
the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of 
Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the 
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse 
Associations of America.
  I urge my colleagues to sign onto this legislation as cosponsors. I 
ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  American Nurses Association,

                                                     June 6, 2007.
     Hon, Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Gordon Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Smith: I am writing on behalf of 
     the American Nurses Association, ANA, to express support for 
     the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 2007. ANA is 
     the only full- service national association representing 
     registered nurses, RNs. Through our 54 state and territorial 
     nursing associations, we represent RNs across the nation in 
     all practice settings.
       ANA applauds your efforts to improve access to home health 
     services. Advanced practice registered nurses, APRNs, are 
     playing an increasing role in American health care delivery. 
     Nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and 
     certified nurse midwives can practice independent of 
     physicians in most states. Many studies have shown that APRNs 
     provide cost-effective, high quality care. In addition, they 
     are often willing to provide services in areas where access 
     to physicians is limited.
       Medicare has recognized the independent practice of APRNs 
     for nearly two decades, and these health care professionals 
     now provide the majority of skilled care to home health 
     patients. Unfortunately, a quirk in Medicare law has kept 
     APRNs from signing home health plans of care and from 
     certifying Medicare patients for the home health benefit. In 
     areas where access to physicians is limited, this outdated 
     prohibition has lead to delays in health care delivery. These 
     delays in care inconvenience patients and their families. In 
     addition, delays can also result in increased cost to the 
     Medicare system when patients are unnecessarily left in more 
     expensive institutional settings.
       The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 2007 would 
     address these problems by specifically allowing nurse 
     practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, and certified 
     nurse midwives to certify home health services. ANA looks 
     forward to working with you to support the enactment of this 
     important legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                                Rose Gonzalez,

                                                 MPS, RN Director,
     Government Affairs.
                                  ____

                                               American College of


                                               Nurse-Midwives,

                                 Silver Spring, MD, June 14, 2007.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the certified nurse-
     midwife, CNM, and certified midwife, CM, members of the 
     American College of Nurse-Midwives, ACNM, I am writing to 
     express strong support for the legislation you plan to 
     introduce this week to ensure appropriate and timely access 
     to necessary home health services for women that might be in 
     the care of a certified nurse-midwife or other primary care 
     provider.
       As you know, currently Medicare only allows a physician to 
     order home health services for Medicare beneficiaries. ACNM 
     believes this is an antiquated requirement that fails to 
     recognize the role advanced practice nurses, including 
     certified nurse-midwives, play in the delivery of high 
     quality, primary care services. Your legislation would ensure

[[Page 16970]]

     that a patient under the care of a certified nurse-midwife 
     can receive necessary home health services in a timely 
     manner. This is particularly important for those women with 
     disabilities who are covered by the Medicare program and are 
     of childbearing age. It is also important for senior women 
     who might be under the care of a certified nurse-midwife for 
     primary care services.
       Thank you again for your leadership on this important 
     matter. ACNM looks forward to working with you to see this 
     legislation's passage during the 110th Congress. For further 
     information on this matter, please contact Mr. Patrick 
     Cooney, ACNM's Federal Representative, at (202) 347-0034.
           Sincerely,
                                                Eunice K.M. Ernst,
     CNM, MPH, DSn(Hon), FACNM, President.
                                  ____

                                          National Association for


                                          Home Care & Hospice,

                                     Washington, DC, June 6, 2007.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the National Association 
     for Home Care & Hospice, NAHC, I am writing to offer our 
     appreciation and support for the Home Health Care Planning 
     Improvement Act of 2007 that would allow nurse practitioners, 
     NPs, clinical nurse specialists, CNSs, certified nurse 
     midwives, CNMs, and physicians' assistants, PAs, to sign 
     Medicare home health plans of care. We commend you for this 
     much needed legislation that will help ensure timely access 
     to home health services while reducing Medicare expenditures 
     on more costly institutional care.
       NPs, CNSs, CNMs, and PAs are playing an increasing role in 
     the delivery of our nation's health care, especially in rural 
     and underserved areas, and are providing necessary medical 
     services to Medicare beneficiaries. They are often more 
     familiar with particular cases than the attending physician. 
     In addition, they are sometimes more readily available than 
     physicians to expedite the processing of necessary paperwork, 
     ensuring that home health agencies will be reimbursed in a 
     timely manner and that care to the beneficiary will not be 
     interrupted. Studies have shown that the expanded use of 
     these professionals can result in dramatic decreases in 
     expensive hospitalizations and nursing home stays.
       We appreciate the outstanding leadership you have shown in 
     helping make home and community-based services more readily 
     available to our nation's elderly population and those with 
     disabilities.
           With our highest regards,
                                              Val J. Halamandaris,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                 American Academy,


                                       of Nurse Practitioners,

                                     Washington, DC. June 7, 2007.
     Senator Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: I am writing in behalf of the 
     American Academy of Nurse Practitioners to endorse the 
     introduction of the Home Health Improvement Act of 2007. This 
     bill will authorize nurse practitioners to order home health 
     services for patients for whose care they are responsible.
       As you know, nurse practitioners have been authorized Part 
     B Medicare providers since 1998. Under the provisions of this 
     law, nurse practitioners render, order and refer for services 
     under their own PIN and UPIN numbers. They may order physical 
     therapy, occupational therapy, bill as consultant and 
     consultees when providing services through telemedicine and 
     order and bill for performing and interpreting diagnostic 
     tests within their scope of practice. Despite their ability 
     to provide and bill for services in all of these areas, they 
     are still unable to refer patients for home health care.
       Nurse practitioners have been demonstrated to provide safe 
     and responsible care to the patients they serve. They have 
     expert knowledge that allows them to provide high level 
     assessments of patient needs and recognize when additional 
     care, such as home health care is needed or not needed by 
     their patients. Given their proven track record in the care 
     of the elderly, it is not logical that nurse practitioners 
     are authorized to be Part B providers, but are unable to 
     order home health care and hospice care for their patients.
       Currently nurse practitioners with patients needing home 
     health care services must locate a physician who will see the 
     patient and write the orders for this care. Not only is the 
     patient's well being jeopardized by the delays that are 
     incurred by this requirement, but added cost is incurred by 
     the Medicare program through extra visits to providers with 
     higher reimbursement rates than nurse practitioners. Passage 
     of this bill will increase the quality and timeliness of care 
     to patients who need home health nursing services.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Jan Towers,

                                           PhD, NP-C, CRNP, FAANP,
     Director of Health Policy.
                                  ____

                                                 American College,


                                       of Nurse Practitioners,

                                                     June 7, 2007.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the American College of 
     Nurse Practitioners (ACNP), a national, non-profit membership 
     organization whose mission is to ensure a solid policy and 
     regulatory foundation that enables Nurse Practitioners to 
     continue providing accessible, high quality healthcare to the 
     nation--I am writing to express our appreciation to you for 
     introducing the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 
     2007.
       The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act importantly 
     will amend the Social Security Act by broadening access to 
     home health services for Medicare beneficiaries. A patient's 
     Nurse Practitioner, physicians' assistant, or certified nurse 
     midwife will now have the right to make changes to their home 
     health care plan. Your critical legislation will safeguard 
     the patient's continuity of care by preventing interruptions 
     due to delays in paperwork from an oftentimes off-site 
     physician who may never have even seen the patient.
       The bill also recognizes the professional training and 
     qualifications of Nurse Practitioners and ensures quality 
     patient care, especially in rural and underserved areas where 
     Nurse Practitioners are often more familiar with particular 
     cases than the attending physician. ACNP thanks you for your 
     ongoing support of the Nurse Practitioner community. Please 
     know that ACNP stands ready to work with you and your staff 
     to ensure Medicare beneficiaries have access to the highest 
     quality care. If we can be of any assistance, please feel 
     free to contact our Health Policy Advisor, Jodie Curtis 
     (Jodie.C[email protected]) or our Chief Executive Officer, 
     Carolyn Hutcherson (C[email protected]).
           Sincerely,
                                            Susan Apold, PhD, ANP,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                  American Academy


                                      of Physician Assistants,

                                     Alexandria, VA, June 6, 2007.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the more than 60,000 
     clinically practicing physician assistants (PAs) in the 
     United States represented by the American Academy of 
     Physician Assistants (AAPA), I thank you for introducing the 
     Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 2007. The AAPA 
     strongly supports this important piece of legislation, and 
     looks forward to working with you to secure its passage 
     during the 110th Congress.
       In 2006, nearly 231 million patient visits were made to 
     physician assistants (PAs) and over 286 million prescriptions 
     were written by PAs. PAs have a longstanding history of 
     providing care in medically underserved communities, and have 
     been credited with improving access to quality and cost-
     effective health care for many among the nation's most 
     vulnerable patient populations.
       Although the 1997 Balanced Budget Act extended Medicare 
     coverage of medical services provided by PAs, as allowed by 
     state law, PAs are not able to order home health care for 
     Medicare beneficiaries. At best, PAs and their supervising 
     physicians are forced to go through unnecessary extra steps 
     to ensure that all home health orders are signed by the 
     physician before the care is provided. At worst, Medicare 
     beneficiaries experience needless delays in receiving home 
     health care because a physician is not available on-site to 
     sign the form.
       The inability of PAs to order home health care is 
     particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in 
     medically underserved communities where a PA may be the only 
     health care professional available. For example,
       Needed home health care was delayed by over a week for a 
     Medicare patient in Nevada, because the PA's supervising 
     physician was located 60 miles away. The PA, who holds a 
     full-time job in another part of the state, is the only 
     health care professional for the patient's small rural town, 
     providing care two weekends a month;
       critical access hospitals in Nevada and other states are 
     having difficulty with discharge planning. By law, critical 
     access hospitals must have a PA or nurse practitioner on site 
     fifty percent of the time. However, Medicare will not accept 
     home health orders that have been signed by a PA;
       PAs in orthopedic practice regularly work after-hours and 
     on weekends. However, necessary home health care must be 
     delayed for Medicare beneficiaries until a physician is 
     available to sign the order.
       The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 2007 
     increases Medicare beneficiaries' access to needed care by 
     allowing PAs to order home health care. The AAPA is pleased 
     to endorse the Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act of 
     2007.
           Sincerely yours,

                                    Mary P. Ettari, MPH, PA-C,

                                                        President.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1680. A bill to provide for the inclusion of certain non-Federal 
land in

[[Page 16971]]

the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and the Alaska Peninsula National 
Wildlife Refuge in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Izembek and Alaska Peninsula 
Wildlife Refuge and Wilderness Enhancement Act authorizes a land 
exchange among the U.S. Department of the Interior, the State of 
Alaska, and the people of King Cove. King Cove is an Alaska Native 
village and many of its present day residents descend from the 
indigenous Aleut people who have lived and thrived in this isolated 
area of the Alaska Peninsula for over 4,000 years.
  This bill provides the land for a road on which to travel to the 
nearest all-weather airport which is located in Cold Bay. The people of 
King Cove do not have a road to their airport today because a National 
Wildlife Refuge wilderness sits between their village and Cold Bay.
  World War II prompted the construction of a major air facility at 
Cold Bay, which is about 25 miles north of King Cove. Today, the Cold 
Bay Airport with a 10,000 foot main runway and a 6,500 foot crosswind 
runway is one of the largest airport facilities in Alaska and is 
accessible 365 days a year. However, the problem for King Cove 
residents has always been their inability to get to the airport on a 
predictable basis due to constant, ever changing weather conditions, 
combined with King Cove's topographic constraints.
  These topographic constraints are directly related to the location of 
King Cove's small gravel airstrip nestled between 3,000 foot volcanic 
peaks. To access the airstrip in King Cove, pilots must navigate a 
narrow opening in the mountains.
  Over the past 30 years, efforts by King Cove residents attempting to 
reach the Cold Bay Airport have resulted in numerous small plane 
crashes, some fatal. Neither King Cove nor Cold Bay have the sort of 
hospital facilities that are found in Anchorage. When King Cove people 
have a serious medical condition, they need to be ``medevaced'' to 
Anchorage from Cold Bay. That assumes that they can reach the airport 
at Cold Bay.
  This legislation accomplishes the goal of providing the King Cove 
people with a road to the airport. It accomplishes this goal in a way 
that provides a net gain, rather than a net loss, to wilderness. The 
exchange provided for in this bill will add 61,723 acres to the Izembek 
and Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuges. It adds 45,456 acres of 
wilderness, the first new wilderness areas designated by the Congress 
in Alaska in a generation. Not since the passage of the Alaska National 
Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, has new wilderness been 
designated in Alaska.
  More importantly, this bill will add key areas of wildlife habitat to 
these two world-class wildlife refuges. Habitat for some of the largest 
and wildest brown bears in the world will transfer from private to 
public ownership. Other areas include key habitat for internationally 
valued waterfowl such as stellar eiders and brants.
  I am sad to say that this is not a new issue for this body. The 
people of King Cove have been seeking justice in the form of a simple 
road to Cold Bay for decades. Congress attempted to make things right 
for the people of King Cove about a decade ago and came up with an 
imperfect solution.
  This imperfect solution involved the construction of a 17-mile road 
from King Cove to a point near the border of the Izembek Refuge 
wilderness and a very expensive hovercraft to ferry King Cove residents 
across the rough waters of Cold Bay. The community has concluded that 
it cannot afford the cost of the hovercraft solution.
  This bill will finish the job started by the Congress a few years 
ago. This bill provides a wonderful combination of wilderness additions 
in return for a small road corridor within the Izembek Wildlife Refuge 
to permit the current 17-mile road to be completed all the way to Cold 
Bay. This is the fairest and most logical process by which the King 
Cove residents and the nation can all benefit.
  I want to commend the parties who have worked on this bill. The State 
of Alaska, has brought nearly 43,000 acres to this exchange. Without 
this land, the exchange would not be possible. The King Cove Native 
Corporation, which is a Village Corporation created by the Alaska 
Native Claim Settlement Act, ANCSA, is donating approximately 2,500 
acres of high value wetland habitat in Kinzaroff Lagoon. This lagoon is 
part of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and will be designated as 
wilderness, so that the mouth of this lagoon will be in public 
ownership. The corporation is also offering another 10,500 acres, which 
will be made part of the Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuge while 
relinquishing another 5,400 acres of their ANCSA land in the Refuge.
  The only land, which will leave Federal ownership in the area, is 
approximately 206 acres for a narrow road to connect the existing road 
from King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport. The route and alignment of the 
road, within the corridor established by the bill, will be determined 
through an inclusive, cooperative planning process.
  It has been suggested by some that we should not reopen this issue--
it has always been so controversial. People who fought this battle 
before, and still have the scars to prove it, were told that putting a 
road in a national wildlife refuge creates a bad precedent. I have been 
warned that every environmental group in the Nation will line up 
against me if I pursue the exchange.
  That may be true but this is how I see it. In the 25 years that have 
passed since the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 
ANILCA, became law, I think most Alaskans have come to appreciate the 
value of setting aside land in Alaska for preservation. That 
appreciation took time. Many Alaskans, as you know, resisted ANILCA.
  In return, it is appropriate for Alaskans to expect the conservation 
system units to be good neighbors to the aboriginal communities that 
they border. That hasn't always been the case. The Aleut people of King 
Cove inhabited their lands long before there was an Izembek National 
Wildlife Refuge. The King Cove people steadfastly maintain that they 
were not consulted before the decision was made to make the land that 
stands between their community and the airport a wilderness. It is 
their contention that thousands of others across the United States, 
Canada, and Europe were invited by the Federal Govermment to make their 
views known in this process, yet they were denied a voice in this most 
crucial decision affecting their native homeland.
  To me the King Cove road isn't just a matter of transportation. It is 
a matter of respect for Native people. That is why I am willing to take 
up this cause on behalf of the Native people of King Cove. I ask my 
colleagues to join with me and with the Aleut people of King Cove to 
make their dream of a road to the airport, something that those in the 
Lower 48 take for granted, a reality.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1680

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Izembek and Alaska Peninsula 
     Refuge and Wilderness Enhancement Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) King Cove, Alaska, is--
       (A) located 625 air miles from Anchorage, Alaska, on the 
     south side of the Alaska Peninsula, on a sand spit fronting 
     Deer Passage and Deer Island;
       (B) accessible only by air and water; and
       (C) 1 of the most geographically isolated areas of the 
     State of Alaska;
       (2) constant adverse weather and limiting physical 
     topography make traveling in and out of King Cove directly by 
     air dangerous and impractical much of the time;
       (3) King Cove is the homeland of Aleut people who--
       (A) are federally recognized as indigenous peoples of the 
     United States;
       (B) have fished, hunted, and subsisted in King Cove for 
     over 4,000 years; and
       (C) refer to the King Cove community as ``Agdaagux'';

[[Page 16972]]

       (4) the Agdaagux Tribal Council, which is the federally 
     recognized tribal government for King Cove, recognizes that 
     most of residents of King Cove are direct descendants of the 
     original Aleut inhabitants;
       (5) in the 1940s, an airport capable of access by jets was 
     constructed by the United States Army at Cold Bay, which is 
     approximately 25 surface miles north of King Cove, to support 
     World War II related national security needs;
       (6) while the Cold Bay Airport, which is now a civilian 
     airport operated by the State of Alaska, is the lifeline for 
     the King Cove people to the outside world, particularly for 
     the life, safety, and health needs of the indigenous 
     residents, there is no surface access between King Cove and 
     the airport;
       (7) nearly all of the land between King Cove and Cold Bay 
     is--
       (A) owned by the Federal Government as part of the Izembek 
     National Wildlife Refuge; and
       (B) managed as wilderness; and
       (8) the Agdaagux Tribal Council--
       (A) maintains that the Council and the indigenous Aleut 
     people of King Cove were not consulted before the land that 
     separates residents from the nearest all-weather airport was 
     designated as wilderness, even though approximately 1,292 
     people across the United States, Canada, and Europe--
       (i) received notice of the potential designation; and
       (ii) during 1969 and 1970, were expressly invited by the 
     Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the predecessor of 
     the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to participate 
     in the process of considering whether the land should be 
     managed as wilderness;
       (B) regards the failure of the Federal Government to 
     consult with the Council and the indigenous Aleut people of 
     King Cove as a ``wrong and troubling action taken by the 
     federal government'';
       (C) submits that dozens of King Cove residents have died or 
     suffered grave health consequences in the past 30 years 
     because the residents could not reach timely medical 
     assistance in Anchorage, Alaska, that can only be accessed 
     via the all-weather Cold Bay Airport; and
       (D) has expressed the full endorsement and support of the 
     Council for the construction of a road between King Cove and 
     the Cold Bay Airport as an expression of, and commitment to, 
     self-determination for the Aleut people of King Cove who were 
     not consulted before the land vital to the survival of the 
     Aleut people of King Cove was designated as wilderness.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal land.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
       (A) the approximately 206 acres of Federal land within the 
     Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in the State that is 
     depicted on the map as ``King Cove Road''; and
       (B) the approximately 1,600 acres of Federal land that is 
     depicted on the map as ``Sitkinak Island''.
       (2) Landowner.--The term ``landowner'' means--
       (A) the State; and
       (B) the other owners of the non-Federal land, including 
     King Cove Corporation.
       (3) Map.--The term ``map'' means the map entitled 
     ``Proposed Land Enhancements'' and dated June 2007.
       (4) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
     the approximately 61,723 acres of non-Federal land authorized 
     to be added to the Refuges under this Act, as depicted on the 
     map.
       (5) Refuge.--The term ``Refuge'' means each of the Izembek 
     National Wildlife Refuge and the Alaska Peninsula National 
     Wildlife Refuge in the State.
       (6) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (7) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Alaska.

     SEC. 4. CONVEYANCE OF LAND.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall convey to the State 
     all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to 
     the Federal land on--
       (1) conveyance by the landowner to the Secretary of title 
     to the non-Federal land that is acceptable to the Secretary; 
     and
       (2) certification by the Governor of the State that the 
     State-owned land at Kinzaroff Lagoon has been designated 
     under State law as a State refuge.
       (b) Map.--
       (1) Availability.--The map shall be on file and available 
     for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the 
     Secretary.
       (2) Revised map.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     completion of the conveyance of Federal land and non-Federal 
     land under this section, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and 
     the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of 
     Representatives a revised map that depicts the Federal land 
     and non-Federal land conveyed under this section.
       (c) King Cove Road Conveyance.--
       (1) In general.--The land described in section 3(1)(A) 
     shall be used for construction of a State road.
       (2) Terms and conditions.--
       (A) Cable barrier.--A road constructed under this 
     subsection shall include a cable barrier on each side of the 
     road, as described in the record of decision entitled 
     ``Mitigation Measure MM-11, King Cove Access Project Final 
     Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision'' and dated 
     January 22, 2004.
       (B) Support facilities.--Support facilities for a road 
     constructed under this subsection shall not be located on 
     federally owned land in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge.
       (3) Cooperative right-of-way planning process.--
       (A) In general.--On request of the State, the Secretary, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of Transportation, the State, 
     the Agdaagux Tribal Council, the Aleutians East Borough, the 
     City of King Cove, and the King Cove Corporation, shall 
     undertake a process to determine the route for the road 
     required to be constructed under paragraph (1) within the 
     corridor that is depicted on the map as ``King Cove Road''.
       (B) Deadline.--Not later than 18 months after the date on 
     which the State submits a request under subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall complete the planning process required under 
     that subparagraph.
       (C) Compatibility.--The route for the road recommended by 
     the Secretary under this paragraph shall be considered to be 
     compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was 
     established.
       (D) Construction.--Construction of the road along the route 
     recommended by the Secretary under this paragraph is 
     authorized in accordance with this Act.
       (4) Reconveyance.--The Secretary shall, on receipt of a 
     written request from the State or the King Cove Corporation, 
     immediately reconvey the applicable non-Federal land to the 
     appropriate landowner that contributed the land if--
       (A) a preliminary or permanent injunction is entered by a 
     court of competent jurisdiction enjoining construction or use 
     of the road; or
       (B) the State or the King Cove Corporation determines 
     before construction of the road that the road cannot be 
     feasibly constructed or maintained.
       (d) Applicable Law.--
       (1) In general.--The conveyance of Federal land and non-
     Federal land shall not be subject to any requirements for 
     valuation, appraisal, and equalization under any other 
     Federal law.
       (2) ANCSA.--The use of existing roads and the construction 
     of new roads on King Cove Corporation land to access the road 
     authorized under this Act shall be considered--
       (A) to be consistent with subsection (g) of section 22 of 
     the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1621) and 
     any patents issued under that subsection; and
       (B) not to interfere with the purposes for which the Refuge 
     was established.
       (e) Notice.--The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives notice 
     of the completion of the conveyance of Federal land and non-
     Federal land under this section.
       (f) Designation of Wilderness.--On conveyance of the non-
     Federal land to the Secretary, the approximately 45,493 acres 
     of land generally depicted on the map entitled ``Wilderness 
     additions to Izembek and Alaska Peninsula Wildlife Refuges'' 
     and dated June 2007, shall be designated as wilderness.
       (g) Administration.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     non-Federal land acquired under this Act--
       (1) in accordance with the laws generally applicable to 
     units of the National Refuge System;
       (2) as wilderness, in accordance with the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.); and
       (3) subject to valid existing rights.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DODD (for himself and Mr. Stevens):
  S. 1681. A bill to provide for a paid family and medical leave 
insurance program, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Family Leave 
Insurance Act of 2007 and especially pleased to be joined by my 
colleague Senator Stevens. This bill, which would provide 8 weeks of 
paid benefits to workers who take time off for reasons allowed under 
the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, is an important step in 
continuing to help our Nation's workers to be both productive employees 
and responsible family members.
  Before the FMLA, workers had no guarantee that their jobs would still 
be there if they took time off to care for loved ones or recover from 
illness themselves. Millions of Americans were forced into a 
challenging dilemma: care for their families, or provide for them.
  That is why I worked to create the FMLA in 1985, and that is why I 
fought for its passage through 7 years of obstruction and two 
presidential vetoes, pointing out that its denial of guaranteed leave 
put America virtually alone

[[Page 16973]]

among nations, industrialized or otherwise.
  Finally, on February 5, 1993, the Family and Medical Leave Act was 
signed into law. Under its protection, eligible workers receive 12 
weeks of leave every year, so that they can watch over a newborn or 
adopted baby, or help a parent through an illness, or get better 
themselves, knowing that their job will be there when they return. To 
date, more than 50 million Americans have taken that opportunity. The 
FMLA isn't just good for American workers, it is good for American 
business. Ninety percent of employers have reported that the FMLA had a 
neutral or positive effect on profits.
  Today, the idea of guaranteed leave seems obvious; but now, it is 
time to take another step in making that hard-won leave a possibility 
for even more Americans. In the 21st century, working families should 
not have to give up the leave they earned because they cannot afford 
it, they deserve paid leave.
  Why do we offer nothing, when the European standard is 14 paid weeks? 
Why are we one of only four countries in the world to deny paid 
maternity leave, leaving us in the company of Swaziland, Liberia, and 
Papua New Guinea?
  For every worker who can weather a day without pay, three more can't 
afford the loss. To these workers, unpaid leave is a hollow promise, an 
impossible choice between the family they love and the job they need.
  I believe it is a choice that no American should ever again be forced 
to make. When Congress passed and President Clinton signed the FMLA, we 
affirmed that health and family should never have to suffer because of 
the demands of work. I fail to see why that right should only be 
afforded to Americans in a certain income bracket.
  With the introduction of the Family Leave Insurance Act, we take a 
huge step toward making family leave a possibility for all Americans. 
Its 8 weeks of paid leave per year will apply to employees who need 
time off for any of the reasons included in the FMLA: birth of a child; 
placement of an adopted or foster child; the care for a child, parent, 
or spouse with a serious medical condition; or recovery from a serious 
personal medical condition. Benefits will be tiered on the basis of 
wages, with the tiers themselves indexed to inflation. This structure 
will provide the greatest benefit to those with the lowest salaries. 
And workers who are covered by the FMLA will retain their health 
insurance and will be guaranteed a return to their job, or a comparable 
position, on their return.
  The act creates a new Family Leave Insurance Fund into which premiums 
are paid, to finance benefit payments, allowing stakeholders to pool 
risk and lower costs, and funded through small, shared premiums. Those 
costs will be shared by employees and employers; the Federal Government 
will pay for administrative costs. Participation will be mandatory for 
all businesses with 50 employees or more; those with fewer employees 
can choose to participate and receive a discount on premium payments. 
To reduce administrative burdens for employers and employees, employers 
will pay leave benefits to employees through their regular payroll, 
with prompt reimbursement from the Family Leave Insurance Fund.
  We know that many employers, both large and small, offer very 
generous leave policies, exemplifying best business practices. Through 
this legislation, we seek to support companies who offer paid leave so 
they continue to do so, and to create an incentive for smaller 
companies to offer paid leave. A provision in the bill allows employers 
to maintain their own paid leave plan, if it is certified to be 
equivalent or better to the plan in this legislation.
  Our bill will also allow States flexibility in maintaining their 
existing programs. Several States already have systems to provide paid 
family and medical leave, and several more have legislation pending to 
create such systems. In recent years, more than 25 States have 
introduced legislation to create paid leave programs. The landscape in 
the States is changing quickly on policies for working families and 
there are complex issues around the interaction between this 
legislation, State programs and employers within States. We look 
forward to collaborating with States so they can maintain maximum 
flexibility, and provide the best leave policy, as the bill moves 
forward.
  As the FMLA has demonstrated so strongly, family leave benefits both 
workers and businesses, and that is certainly the case for paid family 
leave. Paid leave cuts down on employee turnover and the high costs of 
training replacements; it has been shown to raise morale and 
productivity; and it levels the playing field by allowing small 
businesses to adopt a benefit that many of their larger competitors 
have been offering for years.
  Our changing workforce demonstrates the strong need for paid family 
and medical leave. Almost 80 percent of the workforce is made up of 
dual earner couples, who struggle to find time to care for their sick 
children or their own illnesses. In addition, approximately 40 percent 
of the workforce will be caring for older parents by 2010. For these 
and many other reasons, this bill is the right policy.
  The FMLA established the principle, and now the Family Leave 
Insurance Act puts it into practice and into reach for more Americans. 
Its passage will bring America closer to the world's standards, help 
our businesses, and protect our workforce. In the lives of millions of 
Americans, it will help reduce the dilemma of balancing work and 
family. Let us continue to work together: Government, business and 
employees need to continue this conversation and improve our policies 
for working families and individual employees who need paid leave. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Dodd and I 
introduced the Family Leave Insurance Act of 2007, which builds upon 
important protections established by the Family and Medical Leave Act, 
FMLA, of 1993.
  Our legislation would provide 8 weeks of paid benefits to private and 
Federal employees who take leave for reasons permitted by the FMLA. 
These include a serious health condition; care for a critically ill 
child, spouse, or parent; and the birth or adoption of a child.
  Benefits would be provided to workers based on their annual income 
level. As an example, those earning less than $20,000 per year would 
receive 100 percent of their benefits, while those earning $60,000 to 
$97,000 would receive 40 percent. This scaled approach has two 
advantages: it will keep program costs low, and offer the greatest help 
to those who need it most.
  In the past, many have expressed apprehension over the costs 
associated with family and medical leave. These concerns are valid, and 
steps must be taken to ensure neither employees nor employers are 
burdened by this or any similar program.
  As introduced, this insurance fund would be financed by employees, 
employers, and the Federal Government. Employees would contribute 0.2 
percent of their earnings, employers would match this percentage, and 
the Federal Government would pay any administrative expenses not 
covered by those payments. In truth, these costs are minimal for all 
involved. A worker who receives a $1,000 paycheck would disburse just 
$2 to receive full coverage.
  While my support for this bill is not absolute, it does address an 
important shortcoming of the FMLA: employees who need leave often do 
not take time off because they simply cannot afford to do so. Senator 
Dodd has rightly described this as a terrible choice for individuals--
one which forces a decision between ``the job they need and the family 
they love.'' Those of us in the Senate must do everything we can to 
help hard-working American families, and this bill represents a 
significant first step in those efforts.
  As the father of six children, I deeply understand the challenges 
families face following childbirth, in times of sickness, and when 
loved ones fall ill. In Alaska, the majority of parents hold full-time 
jobs outside the home, which often makes this pressure even more 
intense.

[[Page 16974]]

  I commend Senator Dodd for his continued leadership on this issue, 
and look forward to working with my Senate colleagues and leaders in 
the business community to improve this bill as it moves through the 
legislative process.

                          ____________________