[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18425-18430]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CRAPO (for himself and Mr. Craig):
  S. 1764. A bill to improve the use of a grant of a parcel of land to 
the State of Idaho for use as an agricultural college, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, today, with my colleague from Idaho, 
Senator Craig, I rise to introduce a bill to amend the Idaho Admissions 
Act of July 3, 1890, to permit Idaho to administer Morrill Act lands 
and the proceeds there from in accordance with contemporary investment 
standards.
  The State of Idaho has been working to update its management of 
endowed assets received as part of statehood from the Federal 
Government to ensure the maximum longterm financial return to the 
beneficiaries. Key to endowment reform is the implementation of 
contemporary investment principles that require asset diversification 
to reduce the risk of loss and that permit a trustee to deduct 
reasonable costs of administration of the assets normally incurred by a 
prudent fiduciary. Of the Federal grants to Idaho as part of statehood, 
only the Morrill Act limits investments in bonds of the U.S. or Idaho 
and precludes deducting reasonable administrative expenses incurred by 
the trustee. This bill would allow the State of Idaho to administer the 
Morrill Act assets under the same fiduciary standards now applicable to 
all of Idaho's other federally granted endowments.
  Additionally, a broad group of State, Federal, and private interests, 
including the University of Idaho College of Agricultural and Life 
Sciences, the State of Idaho, United Dairymen of Idaho and Allied 
Industry, College of Southern Idaho, the Idaho Cattle Association, 
Idaho Wool Growers, the Idaho National Laboratory, and Federal agencies 
have joined together in developing plans for the Idaho Center for 
Livestock and Environmental Studies to serve as a premier center for 
research and education in dairy and beef science. The important mission 
of the center is to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of 
Idaho, the pacific Northwest, and the Nation by furthering the 
educational and scientific mission of the University of Idaho and its 
public/private partners, by providing a state-of-the-art animal 
research facility capable of large-scale research that provides sound 
scientific results and educational opportunities

[[Page 18426]]

intended to: protect our air, land and water, improve the welfare and 
productivity of our livestock, encourage the efficient use of energy 
and capital, and enhance workforce and economic development.
  The University of Idaho, as a partner in the project and beneficiary 
of the Morrill Act endowment, is well positioned to utilize endowment 
assets to both continue to carry out the educational purposes and 
maintain the underlying real estate endowment while contributing to the 
project. However, modernization of the management of endowed assets 
needs to occur in order for such a worthy project to move forward.
  That is why the legislation Senator Craig and I are introducing today 
will provide more flexibility while allowing for the allocation of 
management expenses in the same fashion as other State endowments, 
expand investment authority to match other State endowments, and 
provide for the use of the earnings from management of the sale of 
endowed lands to be used for the acquisition, construction and 
improvements for the operation of research farms for teaching and 
research purposes.
  I ask that my colleagues act on this measure in a timely manner.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BINGAMAN (for himself, Mr. Specter, Mr. Harkin, Mr. 
        Stevens, Ms. Murkowski, and Mr. Akaka):
  S. 1766. A bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the 
production and use of energy, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce new legislation to 
tackle the escalating problem of global warming. Together with Senators 
Specter, Harkin, Stevens, Murkowski, and Akaka, I am introducing a bill 
we have entitled the ``Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007'' which would 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions that result from the production and use 
of energy in the United States. We do this with the support of many 
influential labor organizations and unions, business leaders, concerned 
conservationists, and environmental groups. I believe this legislation 
represents an important milestone in the debate on global warming. It 
is the product of over 2 years of deliberation and analysis based on 
committee hearings, on stakeholder workshops, on discussions among 
individual Senate offices.
  I would like to make three basic points to my colleagues today that I 
hope will persuade them to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon 
Economy Act and to bring about action on global warming in this 
Congress.
  The first point is that the time for action is now. The second point 
is the most effective approach combines technology research and 
development and deployments with market incentives to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions. And the third point is that effective global action is 
only possible with leadership from the United States.
  First, as to the point that the time for action is now, the United 
States committed in 1992--that was 15 years ago--to participate in a 
framework to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. 
Since that time, what we know about global warming has become more and 
more alarming. According to the latest scientific findings of our 
world's leading experts--that is, the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change--the confidence that humans are altering the Earth's 
climate has reached 90 percent certainty.
  As scientists have grown more certain and more concerned, so have our 
citizens. Across the country, Americans are seeing signs of global 
warming, not as a concern for the distant future, but as having an 
impact on their lives today. More intense hurricanes in the gulf, 
record-breaking wildfires and heat waves in the West, accelerating 
beach erosion on the eastern seaboard, melting permafrost in Alaska, 
all give us a taste of what climate change could mean. If we do not get 
together with other nations to start limiting emissions soon, we will 
have to expect worse in the future.
  Across the country, convenience about climate change has motivated 
Governors, State legislators, and mayors to show that States and cities 
and individuals can help to manage this most important environmental 
problem of our time. Their motivation has another root, however, and 
that is frustration. I am talking about frustration that the Federal 
Government has failed, so far, to show the leadership and take the 
action necessary to meet this challenge.
  It is against this backdrop we are introducing this legislation 
today, with the support of this historic new coalition. My colleague 
from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, represents a State that relies 
heavily on manufacturing and coal production--a fossil fuel that is 
responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases. He has consistently 
fought to protect the economy of his State and of the country. This 
bill we are introducing continues that tradition. It does so with the 
full backing of labor organizations, such as the AFL-CIO, unions, such 
as the Steelworkers and the United Mine Workers.
  My colleagues from Alaska, Senators Stevens and Murkowski, represent 
a State that is likely to be among those most directly affected by 
global warming. Alaska balances a reliance on fossil fuel production 
with the demands of a unique natural habitat and a long history of 
indigenous cultures that are threatened by the warming climate.
  My Democratic colleagues from Iowa and Hawaii, Senators Harkin and 
Akaka, have helped bring to the table a way to include the agricultural 
community in greenhouse gas markets and to strengthen our protection of 
coastal lands and impacts on the poor.
  This bipartisan coalition also has the support of companies, such as 
PNM, from my home State of New Mexico, Exelon, and American Electric 
Power. We have also worked closely with numerous conservation 
organizations to design provisions in the legislation to ensure that 
America's fish and wildlife can survive the effects of climate change.
  As a result, 23 major national conservation organizations, 
representing millions of hunters and anglers, have expressed support 
for this approach we have taken to fish and wildlife conservation. They 
recognize the enormous threat posed by climate change, and they support 
the way we have responded to that in this proposed bill.
  Combined with the support of other labor unions, such as the United 
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, the United Auto Workers, and the 
International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, this bill demonstrates 
that the ground has shifted sufficiently in Washington and we can 
realistically press for action now in this Congress.
  My second point is the action we need now is a combination of 
technology incentives--both to develop the technology, and to use that 
technology, or deploy that technology--and also limits on emissions. 
Only mandatory limits will create the economy-wide price signal needed 
to spur serious investment and innovation in finding ways to curb 
emissions.
  The bill we have put together is the product of a long process of 
deliberation and analysis. In 2005, I put forward a proposal based on 
the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on Energy 
Policy. In the time that has passed since then, we have worked on this 
issue in the Senate Energy Committee with colleagues to understand the 
best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We convened hearings and 
we hosted workshops tailored to learn about key design features of 
mandatory market-based programs and the European experience with these 
programs.
  I have concluded we need massive investment in technologies that are 
more efficient and less carbon intensive if we are going to effectively 
confront global warming. I doubt there is a single Member of this body 
who does not believe new options for generating electricity and for 
fueling our economy are needed, whether it is to limit climate risks or 
to reduce our oil dependence and enhance our energy security.
  Where we have come to a standstill has always been in finding the 
resources to make the research and development investments we need and 
to

[[Page 18427]]

provide the incentives that will get these new technologies widely 
adopted in the marketplace once they are available. This Low Carbon 
Economy Act provides funding for an unprecedented push to develop and 
deploy new climate friendly technologies on a massive scale.
  Specifically, the bill would more than triple the Federal investment 
in low-carbon energy technologies and would ease the transition to a 
globally competitive, low-carbon economy. In addition, this bill would 
provide bonuses--worth approximately $100 billion over 30 years--to 
ambitious and innovative companies that are willing to take on the 
challenge of building commercial-scale powerplants that capture and 
sequester carbon dioxide emissions.
  Implementing the transition to a low-carbon economy is enormously 
important and it is also equally challenging. It requires new 
technology, new resources, and new policies, but most of all it 
requires political will. I am confident we can rise to the challenge if 
we can work together in a bipartisan manner to craft legislation that 
considers both our environmental and our economic challenges.
  This Nation has a longstanding interest in developing clean domestic 
energy resources--an interest that predates our current concerns about 
climate change. But the problem has been this interest has waxed and 
waned in the past, usually in direct relation to the price of oil, 
along with our commitment and our ability to devote the resources it 
takes to get the job done.
  Now, through enactment of this Low Carbon Economy Act, we can spur 
our industries and our universities, our entrepreneurs and our 
innovators to push the limits of feasibility in ways that have led to 
technology breakthroughs in the past. Examples, of course, are the 
space program, the Internet, and the communications revolution.
  But voluntary initiatives and incentives alone will not get the job 
done. Many of my colleagues have expressed a reluctance to tread into 
the water of climate caps and regulation because they fear that 
burdening the economy before we have the technology available to meet 
the goals we set out would be unwise. We have concluded that further 
delay while we wait for technology is not a responsible strategy.
  We can invest billions of dollars in research on technology, but 
those technologies will always be more expensive than the current way 
of doing business as long as the current way of doing business allows 
greenhouse gases to be released to the atmosphere without any charge at 
all. In a competitive market economy, it is unrealistic to expect 
companies to do otherwise than to maximize their profits and to look 
out for the bottom line. That means businesses will not implement new 
technologies unless those technologies make good financial sense.
  The truth is, we have many of the technologies we need today to get 
started on this problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We can 
begin deploying them today while we invest in research for newer 
technologies for use tomorrow. It is absolutely essential we have a 
combination of technology incentives and price signals to make both of 
these things happen.
  This Low Carbon Economy Act reflects this central premise, generating 
both the revenue needed to ensure that new technologies are available 
when we need them and the price signal needed to spur business to 
invest in deploying those technologies as soon as possible.
  My final point is that an approach such as the one that is set out in 
this Low Carbon Economy Act offers the best hope for reestablishing 
U.S. leadership on the issue of climate change at this point in time. 
People will continue to debate the stringency of our proposal--whether 
it is too aggressive or too weak--but the bottom line is that other 
nations are looking to the United States to embrace mandatory action.
  There has been much focus lately on China's rapidly growing 
emissions, but the fact remains ours is the world's richest economy and 
the one with the highest greenhouse gas emissions. Even if China's 
emissions eclipse ours this year or in the next few years, it is still 
the case that our historic and ongoing emissions account for a large, 
and some would say, a disproportionate share of the problem.
  Our continued failure to implement a mandatory program has meant we 
have not been the driving force we need to be to bring countries 
together to resolve this serious issue. Nor has it put us in a position 
to encourage rapidly industrializing nations, such as China, India, and 
Brazil, to pursue a low-carbon pathway as they develop their economies.
  Make no mistake, our legislation recognizes that all of the large 
emitting countries need to be seriously involved in global efforts to 
combat climate change and need to participate in good faith. The 
administration has put forward a program to engage developing countries 
through loan guarantees, cost-sharing for demonstration projects, and 
information sharing. I support this approach, but I am also convinced 
that it will only work as part of a broader policy initiative that 
includes mandatory limits on U.S. emissions.
  Included in this Low Carbon Economy Act is funding for these programs 
so that the United States can put forth a true effort to make 
significant relationships work abroad. But we need to take a more 
aggressive step at home while we pursue this strategy abroad. Only 
through this leadership can we expect others to see that they too must 
do their part. Only through this leadership will we be able to rebuild 
the credibility we need to inspire an effective global response, 
including, if necessary, working with other leading countries to apply 
pressure on nations that continue to avoid implementing emissions 
limits. To sum up, we are well aware that the U.S. cannot do this 
alone. But we are equally convinced that others will not do their share 
unless the U.S. leads the way.
  In conclusion, we ask our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the 
Low Carbon Economy Act. With their help, it is my hope we can bring the 
Senate to take action on this issue by the end of the year. I also hope 
the President will work with us to work out the details of this 
proposal going forward. Congress cannot do this without the leadership 
of the President. The issue is too significant to be able to make 
progress without having active and constructive dialog with the 
administration at every step of the way. Congress must make it known 
that we intend to forge ahead with or without the administration's help 
and the President's help. I hope the majority leader is able to 
schedule time here on the Senate floor to deal with this issue of 
global warming later this year. Only with deadlines and a structured 
process will the Senate be able to devote the energy and attention the 
issue needs and deserves.
  I pledge to work in earnest with my colleagues, including the 
chairman of the Senate Environment Committee, Senator Boxer, and with 
Senators Lieberman and Warner of that committee, who I know are working 
on this issue. I hope they and others will see this legislation as a 
framework that will be helpful to them in developing an approach to 
bring to the Senate floor.
  Ultimately, I am optimistic we can take the best ideas and succeed in 
passing legislation because there is now broad agreement within this 
body and within the business community and the general public about the 
need for real progress and action on the issue. Let's not wait any 
longer, when we know that one course of action we cannot afford and 
cannot defend is continued paralysis.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to join Senator 
Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 
Resources, in introducing the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007. This 
legislation represents the most comprehensive and responsible approach 
to date in reducing our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions, which 
contribute to the growing threat of global climate change.
  The amount and quality of scientific data continue to improve our 
understanding of global climate change. This information points toward 
potentially

[[Page 18428]]

severe ramifications for Earth's climate, ecosystems, and life as we 
know it. The most recent assessment in February 2007 by the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, concluded that ``most 
of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the 
mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in 
anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.'' This 90 percent 
likelihood of human impact on the global climate adds to the compelling 
case that action to fight climate change is warranted.
  Some skeptics of the human contribution to this global problem 
remain, however their voices grow more distant as more information 
comes to light. Given past uncertainties, I have previously been unable 
to support legislative proposals which have threatened U.S. economic 
interests without meaningful environmental benefit. The Senate voted 
95-0 in 1997 to overwhelmingly support the Byrd-Hagel resolution, S. 
Res. 98, rejecting the Kyoto protocol for its unequal treatment of 
developed and developing nations, as well as the potential serious harm 
to the U.S. economy. Subsequently, the Senate has twice voted on 
climate change legislation offered by Senators McCain and Lieberman--
failing by votes of 43-55 in 2003 and 38-60 in 2005. As I stated on the 
Senate floor at the time, the McCain-Lieberman bill did not contain 
adequate consideration of the U.S. economy, nor did it adequately 
address the global nature of the problem.
  However, due to my increasing concerns about the threats of climate 
change, in 2005, I joined Senator Bingaman in offering an amendment to 
the Energy Policy Act, amendment No. 866, which was passed by voice 
vote after an unsuccessful attempt--43-54 vote to table'' or set it 
aside. The amendment called on the U.S. Congress to ``enact a 
comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based 
limits and incentives on emissions of greenhouse gases that slow, stop, 
and reverse the growth of such emissions at a rate and in a manner 
that: (1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and 
(2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major 
trading partners and key contributors to global emissions.''
  In January of this year, Senator Bingaman and I announced a 
``discussion draft'' of legislation to achieve these goals. Today, we 
are introducing a revised bill which has been shaped by a comprehensive 
and inclusive stakeholder process which brought together over 300 
representatives of consumers, energy producers, manufacturers, workers, 
and environmental advocacy organizations, as well as numerous Senate 
offices.
  The ``Low Carbon Economy Act'' creates a strong and credible approach 
to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas, GHG, emissions while protecting the U.S. 
economy and engaging developing countries. The act creates a cap-and-
trade program for U.S. GHG emissions that is modeled on the successful 
Acid Rain Program. By setting an annual target and allowing firms to 
buy, sell, and trade credits to achieve the target, the program is 
designed to elicit the most cost-effective reductions across the 
economy. The target is set to avoid harm to the economy and promote a 
gradual but decisive transition to new, low-carbon technologies.
  The strategic targets of the act are: reducing U.S. GHG emissions to 
2006 levels by 2020 and 1990 levels by 2030. To limit economic 
uncertainty and price volatility, the government would allow firms to 
make a payment at a fixed price in lieu of submitting allowances. This 
fee, referred to in the bill as the ``Technology Accelerator 
Payment''--TAP--starts at $12 per metric ton of CO2-
equivalent in the first year of the program and rises steadily each 
year thereafter at 5 percent above the rate of inflation. If technology 
improves rapidly and if additional GHG reduction policies are adopted, 
the TAP option will never be engaged. Conversely, if technology 
improves less rapidly than expected and program costs exceed 
predictions, companies could make a payment into the energy technology 
deployment fund at the TAP price, to cover a portion or all of their 
allowance submission requirement.
  Under the act, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from 
petroleum and natural gas are regulated ``upstream''--that is, at or 
close to the point of fuel production. For these fuels, regulated 
entities are required to submit tradable allowances equal to the carbon 
content of fuels produced or processed at their facilities. Regulated 
entities that must submit allowances include: petroleum refineries, 
natural gas processing facilities, fossil fuel importers, large coal-
consuming facilities, and producers/importers of non-CO2 
GHGs. GHG emissions from coal are regulated ``downstream'' at the point 
of fuel consumption.
  The proposal sets out a detailed methodology for distributing 
tradable emission allowances. At the beginning of the program in 2012, 
a majority--53 percent--of allowances are given out for free to the 
private sector. This amount is gradually reduced each year after the 
first 5 years of the program. In addition, 8 percent of allowances will 
be set aside annually to create incentives for carbon capture and 
storage to jump-start these critical technologies; 24 percent of total 
allowances will be auctioned by the government to generate much-needed 
revenue for the research, development, and deployment of low- and no-
carbon technologies, to provide for climate change adaptation measures, 
and to provide assistance to low-income households; 5 percent of 
allowances are reserved to promote agricultural sequestration; and 1 
percent of the allowances will reward companies that have undertaken 
``early actions'' to reduce emissions before program implementation. 
Another 9 percent of the allowances are to be distributed directly to 
States which can use associated revenues at their discretion to address 
regional impacts, promote technology or energy efficiency, and enhance 
energy security.
  To effectively engage developing countries, the act would fund joint 
research and development partnerships and technology transfer programs 
similar to the Asia Pacific Partnership. The bill also calls for a 5-
year review process that provides an opportunity to reassess domestic 
action in light of efforts by our major trade partners--and relevant 
scientific and technological developments. If other countries are 
deemed to be making inadequate efforts, the President could recommend 
to Congress that products imported from such countries must be 
accompanied by allowances--from a separate reserve of allowances--
sufficient to cover their embedded greenhouse-gas content. If there is 
sufficient international progress in reducing global greenhouse gas 
emissions, the President could recommend changes in the U.S. program 
designed to achieve further reductions--e.g., to at least 60 percent 
below 2006 levels by 2050.
  There are many other provisions of this comprehensive legislation 
that help set the U.S. on the right track in taking meaningful steps to 
combat global climate change and put our trading partners on notice 
that we take this issue very seriously. Strong U.S. leadership will go 
a long way in moving the Nation and the world toward a cleaner and more 
sustainable future. I am pleased that the legislation we introduce 
today has so much support from labor groups, energy companies, and 
conservation and sportsmen organizations. Senator Bingaman and I intend 
to work closely with our colleagues and all interested stakeholders to 
answer questions and consider feedback on our proposal.
  I invite my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring the Low Carbon 
Economy Act of 2007 and I look forward to a meaningful debate on global 
climate change and the U.S. role in leading the world in technology 
development.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Lott, and Mrs. Feinstein):
  S. 1767. A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to 
provide an exception to the 60-day limit on Medicare reciprocal billing 
arrangements between two physicians during the period in which one of 
the physicians is ordered to active duty as a member of a reserve 
component of the Armed Forces; to the Committee on Finance.

[[Page 18429]]


  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today, along with my colleague, Senator 
Lott, I am introducing legislation to fix an unforeseen problem that 
unfairly affects the ability of physicians called up to duty in the 
National Guard and Reserve to maintain their practices while they are 
serving our country.
  Under the Medicare rules, a doctor who is absent from his practice 
can enter into a reciprocal billing arrangement with another doctor, 
who cares for the absent physician's patients and bills Medicare 
accordingly. However, these arrangements cannot last longer than 60 
days. After 60 days, a second replacement must be found. Failure to 
find a replacement can mean losing patients to other doctors or 
providing care that won't be reimbursed by Medicare.
  For doctors called up to active National Guard or Reserve duty, 
finding physicians to cover their patients while they are gone is hard 
enough, especially if they have practices in remote and rural areas.
  Asking these doctors to find replacements every 60 days is just too 
much. These folks are already making tremendous sacrifices for all 
Americans, and there is no good reason to ask them to shoulder this 
additional burden, along with all the other challenges that they must 
confront while they are called up to active duty. The least Congress 
can do is ensure that these brave men and women aren't also asked to 
sacrifice their medical practices.
  In May, the House of Representatives passed a bill introduced by 
Congressman Mike Thompson, and Congressman Sam Johnson that temporarily 
suspended the 60 day rule through the end of the year. Senator Lott and 
I are introducing the same piece of legislation today. We are also 
introducing a bill that will provide a permanent fix to this problem; 
Congressman Thompson and Congressman Johnson are also introducing the 
permanent fix today in the House.
  I urge the Senate to pass both pieces of legislation as soon as 
possible. These doctors are making enormous sacrifices and are 
responsible for saving countless lives. We owe it to them to ensure 
that when they come home, their medical practices remain viable. Fixing 
this Medicare rule will help ensure this.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of S. 1767 and S. 1768 be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bills was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1767

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

     SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO 60-DAY LIMIT ON MEDICARE RECIPROCAL 
                   BILLING ARRANGEMENTS IN CASE OF PHYSICIANS 
                   ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1842(b)(6)(D)(iii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)(D)(iii)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``of more than 60 days'' the following: ``or 
     are provided (before January 1, 2008) over a longer 
     continuous period during all of which the first physician has 
     been called or ordered to active duty as a member of a 
     reserve component of the Armed Forces''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to services furnished on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this section.
                                  ____


                                S. 1768

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

     SECTION 1. EXCEPTION TO 60-DAY LIMIT ON MEDICARE RECIPROCAL 
                   BILLING ARRANGEMENTS IN CASE OF PHYSICIANS 
                   ORDERED TO ACTIVE DUTY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--Section 1842(b)(6)(D)(iii) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(6)(D)(iii)) is amended by 
     inserting after ``of more than 60 days'' the following: ``or 
     are provided over a longer continuous period during all of 
     which the first physician has been called or ordered to 
     active duty as a member of a reserve component of the Armed 
     Forces''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to services furnished on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this section.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. PRYOR (for himself, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. Hutchison, 
        Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Warner, Mr. Durbin, Mr. McCain, and Mr. 
        Coleman):
  S. 1771. A bill to increase the safety of swimming pools and spas by 
requiring the use of proper anti-entrapment drain covers and pool and 
spa drainage systems, to educate the public about pool and spa safety, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of S. 
1771, the ``Virginia Graeme Baker Pool and Spa Safety Act,'' 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. 1771

       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 ``Virginia Graeme Baker Pool 
     and Spa Safety Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) Of injury-related deaths, drowning is the second 
     leading cause of death in children aged 1 to 14 in the United 
     States.
       (2) In 2004, 761 children aged 14 and under died as a 
     result of unintentional drowning.
       (3) Adult supervision at all aquatic venues is a critical 
     safety factor in preventing children from drowning.
       (4) Research studies show that the installation and proper 
     use of barriers or fencing, as well as additional layers of 
     protection, could substantially reduce the number of 
     childhood residential swimming pool drownings and near 
     drownings.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) ASME/ANSI.--The term ``ASME/ANSI'' as applied to a 
     safety standard means such a standard that is accredited by 
     the American National Standards Institute and published by 
     the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
       (2) Barrier.--The term ``barrier'' includes a natural or 
     constructed topographical feature that prevents unpermitted 
     access by children to a swimming pool, and, with respect to a 
     hot tub, a lockable cover.
       (3) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission.
       (4) Main drain.--The term ``main drain'' means a submerged 
     suction outlet typically located at the bottom of a pool or 
     spa to conduct water to a re-circulating pump.
       (5) Safety vacuum release system.--The term ``safety vacuum 
     release system'' means a vacuum release system capable of 
     providing vacuum release at a suction outlet caused by a high 
     vacuum occurrence due to a suction outlet flow blockage.
       (6) Swimming pool; spa.--The term ``swimming pool'' or 
     ``spa'' means any outdoor or indoor structure intended for 
     swimming or recreational bathing, including in-ground and 
     above-ground structures, and includes hot tubs, spas, 
     portable spas, and non-portable wading pools.
       (7) Unblockable drain.--The term ``unblockable drain'' 
     means a drain of any size and shape that a human body cannot 
     sufficiently block to create a suction entrapment hazard.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA DRAIN COVER STANDARD.

       (a) Consumer Product Safety Rule.--The requirements 
     described in subsection (b) shall be treated as a consumer 
     product safety rule issued by the Consumer Product Safety 
     Commission under the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2051 et seq.).
       (b) Drain Cover Standard.--Effective 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, each swimming pool or spa drain 
     cover manufactured, distributed, or entered into commerce in 
     the United States shall conform to the entrapment protection 
     standards of the ASME/ANSI A112.19.8 performance standard, or 
     any successor standard regulating such swimming pool or drain 
     cover.

     SEC. 5. STATE SWIMMING POOL SAFETY GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations authorized by subsection (e), the Commission 
     shall establish a grant program to provide assistance to 
     eligible States.
       (b) Eligibility.--To be eligible for a grant under the 
     program, a State shall--
       (1) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Commission that 
     it has a State statute, or that, after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, it has enacted a statute, or amended an existing 
     statute, and provides for the enforcement of, a law that--
       (A) except as provided in section 6(a)(1)(A)(i), applies to 
     all swimming pools in the State; and
       (B) meets the minimum State law requirements of section 6; 
     and
       (2) submit an application to the Commission at such time, 
     in such form, and containing such additional information as 
     the Commission may require.
       (c) Amount of Grant.--The Commission shall determine the 
     amount of a grant awarded under this Act, and shall 
     consider--
       (1) the population and relative enforcement needs of each 
     qualifying State; and
       (2) allocation of grant funds in a manner designed to 
     provide the maximum benefit

[[Page 18430]]

     from the program in terms of protecting children from 
     drowning or entrapment, and, in making that allocation, shall 
     give priority to States that have not received a grant under 
     this Act in a preceding fiscal year.
       (d) Use of Grant Funds.--A State receiving a grant under 
     this section shall use--
       (1) at least 50 percent of amounts made available to hire 
     and train enforcement personnel for implementation and 
     enforcement of standards under the State swimming pool and 
     spa safety law; and
       (2) the remainder--
       (A) to educate pool construction and installation companies 
     and pool service companies about the standards;
       (B) to educate pool owners, pool operators, and other 
     members of the public about the standards under the swimming 
     pool and spa safety law and about the prevention of drowning 
     or entrapment of children using swimming pools and spas; and
       (C) to defray administrative costs associated with such 
     training and education programs.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Commission for each of fiscal years 
     2009 and 2010 $2,000,000 to carry out this section, such sums 
     to remain available until expended.

     SEC. 6. MINIMUM STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Safety standards.--A State meets the minimum State law 
     requirements of this section if--
       (A) the State requires by statute--
       (i) the enclosure of all residential pools and spas by 
     barriers to entry that will effectively prevent small 
     children from gaining unsupervised and unfettered access to 
     the pool or spa;
       (ii) that all pools and spas be equipped with devices and 
     systems designed to prevent entrapment by pool or spa drains;
       (iii) that pools and spas built more than 1 year after the 
     date of the enactment of such statute have--

       (I) more than 1 drain;
       (II) 1 or more unblockable drains; or
       (III) no main drain; and

       (iv) every swimming pool and spa that has a main drain, 
     other than an unblockable drain, be equipped with a drain 
     cover that meets the consumer product safety standard 
     established by section 4; and
       (B) the State meets such additional State law requirements 
     for pools and spas as the Commission may establish after 
     public notice and a 30-day public comment period.
       (2) Use of minimum state law requirements.--The 
     Commission--
       (A) shall use the minimum State law requirements under 
     paragraph (1) solely for the purpose of determining the 
     eligibility of a State for a grant under section 5 of this 
     Act; and
       (B) may not enforce any requirement under paragraph (1) 
     except for the purpose of determining the eligibility of a 
     State for a grant under section 5 of this Act.
       (3) Requirements to reflect national performance standards 
     and commission guidelines.--In establishing minimum State law 
     requirements under paragraph (1), the Commission shall--
       (A) consider current or revised national performance 
     standards on pool and spa barrier protection and entrapment 
     prevention; and
       (B) ensure that any such requirements are consistent with 
     the guidelines contained in the Commission's publication 362, 
     entitled ``Safety Barrier Guidelines for Home Pools'', the 
     Commission's publication entitled ``Guidelines for Entrapment 
     Hazards: Making Pools and Spas Safer'', and any other pool 
     safety guidelines established by the Commission.
       (b) Standards.--Nothing in this section prevents the 
     Commission from promulgating standards regulating pool and 
     spa safety or from relying on an applicable national 
     performance standard.
       (c) Basic Access-Related Safety Devices and Equipment 
     Requirements To Be Considered.--In establishing minimum State 
     law requirements for swimming pools and spas under subsection 
     (a)(1), the Commission shall consider the following 
     requirements:
       (1) Covers.--A safety pool cover.
       (2) Gates.--A gate with direct access to the swimming pool 
     that is equipped with a self-closing, self-latching device.
       (3) Doors.--Any door with direct access to the swimming 
     pool that is equipped with an audible alert device or alarm 
     which sounds when the door is opened.
       (4) Pool alarm.--A device designed to provide rapid 
     detection of an entry into the water of a swimming pool or 
     spa.
       (d) Entrapment, Entanglement, and Evisceration Prevention 
     Standards To Be Required.--
       (1) In general.--In establishing additional minimum State 
     law requirements for swimming pools and spas under subsection 
     (a)(1), the Commission shall require, at a minimum, 1 or more 
     of the following (except for pools constructed without a 
     single main drain):
       (A) Safety vacuum release system.--A safety vacuum release 
     system which ceases operation of the pump, reverses the 
     circulation flow, or otherwise provides a vacuum release at a 
     suction outlet when a blockage is detected, that has been 
     tested by an independent third party and found to conform to 
     ASME/ANSI standard A112.19.17 or ASTM standard F2387.
       (B) Suction-limiting vent system.--A suction-limiting vent 
     system with a tamper-resistant atmospheric opening.
       (C) Gravity drainage system.--A gravity drainage system 
     that utilizes a collector tank.
       (D) Automatic pump shut-off system.--An automatic pump 
     shut-off system.
       (E) Drain disablement.--A device or system that disables 
     the drain.
       (F) Other systems.--Any other system determined by the 
     Commission to be equally effective as, or better than, the 
     systems described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of this 
     paragraph at preventing or eliminating the risk of injury or 
     death associated with pool drainage systems.
       (2) Applicable standards.--Any device or system described 
     in subparagraphs (B) through (E) of paragraph (1) shall meet 
     the requirements of any ASME/ANSI or ASTM performance 
     standard if there is such a standard for such a device or 
     system, or any applicable consumer product safety standard.

     SEC. 7. EDUCATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Commission shall establish and carry 
     out an education program to inform the public of methods to 
     prevent drowning and entrapment in swimming pools and spas. 
     In carrying out the program, the Commission shall develop--
       (1) educational materials designed for pool manufacturers, 
     pool service companies, and pool supply retail outlets;
       (2) educational materials designed for pool owners and 
     operators; and
       (3) a national media campaign to promote awareness of pool 
     and spa safety.
       (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Commission for each of the fiscal 
     years 2008 through 2012 $5,000,000 to carry out the education 
     program authorized by subsection (a).

     SEC. 8. CPSC REPORT.

       Not later than 1 year after the last day of each fiscal 
     year for which grants are made under section 5, the 
     Commission shall submit to Congress a report evaluating the 
     effectiveness of the grant program authorized by that 
     section.

                          ____________________